NationStates Jolt Archive

A question for NSG, which is better for the child, for the parents who don't love one another to stay together for the children's sake, or for them to divorce and go and find someone who'll make them happy and who'll they'll be in love with.

I didn't grow up in a house with divorced parents, my parents are still married and going on 40 years, so I don't really have any real comment on this, per se.

However, I'd have to say if my parents didn't love one another anymore and were only staying together for the sake of my brother and me, I'd want them to get a divorce so that they'll be happy and hopefully find someone who'll they'll love.

it depends on the circumstances...

Divorce, a thousand times divorce.

Divorce... there's research evidence to prove it. An attentive and loving single-parent family is better for the child than a conflict-riden two-parent family.

Divorce... there's research evidence to prove it. An attentive and loving single-parent family is better for the child than a conflict-riden two-parent family.
it depends on the circumstances...

a couple who dont fight and who agree on staying together until the children are grown is better than the single parent who flits from bad relationship to bad relationship.

not that i think that you should live your life for your children. no one should stay married to someone they dont want to be married to. but that doesnt mean that it is automatically better for the children.

A question for NSG, which is better for the child, for the parents who don't love one another to stay together for the children's sake, or for them to divorce and go and find someone who'll make them happy and who'll they'll be in love with.

I didn't grow up in a house with divorced parents, my parents are still married and going on 40 years, so I don't really have any real comment on this, per se.

However, I'd have to say if my parents didn't love one another anymore and were only staying together for the sake of my brother and me, I'd want them to get a divorce so that they'll be happy and hopefully find someone who'll they'll love.

The latter, definitely. No matter how much the parents may try to hide it, children do pick up on it when they're unhappy. So, in the end, staying together "for the childrens' sake" is not only unhealthy for the parents' relationship, it's also not very good for the children.

Imagine being 18 years old and realizing that you're seeing your mother truly happy with her life for the first time....

hard to say.

I can see resentment being focused towards the child if the parents decide to stay together for the child's sake.

yet I also hear tales of what children go through during a particularly nasty divorce.

Depends on what "doesn't love one another" means. If you can still be friends and live in the same household amicably there's nothing wrong with staying married. It's certainly less expensive than setting up two separate households.

I will say I don't agree with joint custody, though. Children don't need to be bounced around back and forth between homes, even if their parents live in the same town. They need a consistent routine in their lives, especially the younger they are. I don't get why divorcing couples have joint custody arrangements for *infants.* That's really destructive of the infant's capacity for bonding.

Depends on what "doesn't love one another" means. If you can still be friends and live in the same household amicably there's nothing wrong with staying married. It's certainly less expensive than setting up two separate households.

I will say I don't agree with joint custody, though. Children don't need to be bounced around back and forth between homes, even if their parents live in the same town. They need a consistent routine in their lives, especially the younger they are. I don't get why divorcing couples have joint custody arrangements for *infants.* That's really destructive of the infant's capacity for bonding.
joint custody isnt always (or even a majority of the time) joint PHYSICAL custody.

and its not easy to decide which parent should lose out on the bonding experience eh?

Divorce wins this one. Seen a few kids fucked up by parents sticking around too long.

I stayed with my abusive fiance for almost a year before calling it quits for that very reason.

I should've just left immediately.

Warning: Emotional honesty ahead.

A question for NSG, which is better for the child, for the parents who don't love one another to stay together for the children's sake, or for them to divorce and go and find someone who'll make them happy and who'll they'll be in love with.

I didn't grow up in a house with divorced parents, my parents are still married and going on 40 years, so I don't really have any real comment on this, per se.

However, I'd have to say if my parents didn't love one another anymore and were only staying together for the sake of my brother and me, I'd want them to get a divorce so that they'll be happy and hopefully find someone who'll they'll love.

Well, I can't provide any sort of overall answer. I can give you one data point though: my own.

Going back quite a long way, my parents have had various issues in their marriage. I don't know all about it, I haven't really asked about it. But I've been easily able to pick up on stress, been able to hear people crying at night and seen their fragility. Anyway, just this last summer, they finally took the plunge and separated.

That wasn't happy either. I cried about it quite a bit, and let go of a lot myself. My dad's now moved out, but still is around to help with things on occasion. It's been a big change, that's for sure. But I can feel a lot less stress in the household. Things are generally more polite, less snappy. My mum's not always at the end of her tether any more.

So no, I don't like it having had to happen. It isn't something I want to go through, and if I ever have kids it's not something I want to put them through*. I sure as hell would oppose any sort of fairly frivolous divorce if one has children --- don't do that to them. But I feel that my parents had tried as hard as they could to make it work, and it simply wasn't. It was doing too much emotional damage to both of them, and the fallout was hitting us children as well. And so it had to be done. Now that I'm a few months out of it, I think it was the best choice.

The latter, definitely. No matter how much the parents may try to hide it, children do pick up on it when they're unhappy. So, in the end, staying together "for the childrens' sake" is not only unhealthy for the parents' relationship, it's also not very good for the children.

Imagine being 18 years old and realizing that you're seeing your mother truly happy with her life for the first time....

I don't need to imagine it... it's happened to me. Things aren't perfect, by a long way. She's still a bit of a wreck, there's still practical issues to sort through, we're still settling in to a new model.

But despite all that, I can feel she's a lot more relaxed, a lot less stressed and torn up, than she used to be. It's really quite wonderful, now that I think about it.

There's always the old tale involving a couple seeking a divorce after 68 years of marriage. The judge was overcome with curiosity and asked “Why now, after all this time?” Their reply: “We were waiting for the children to die.”

There's always the old tale involving a couple seeking a divorce after 68 years of marriage. The judge was overcome with curiosity and asked “Why now, after all this time?” Their reply: “We were waiting for the children to die.”
a friend of my mother in law got a divorce after 54 years of marriage.

thats a long time to wait to be happy.

The evidence supporting divorce over staying together is obsolete.
http://www.divorceresourcecenter.com/unhappy-marriage.htm
There are far too many people looking for a perfect marriage that frankly doesn't exist.

There's always the old tale involving a couple seeking a divorce after 68 years of marriage. The judge was overcome with curiosity and asked “Why now, after all this time?” Their reply: “We were waiting for the children to die.”
Pretty much /thread there.

My ex remarried within a few months of our divorce. His kids with wife #2 grew up with both parents. The oldest got pregnant three times and had two abortions before she finally graduated high school and married the father of her kids. The next married and divorced and is currently having an affair with her married boss.

My kids grew up with just me. My daughter got her Master's degree and is dating a university professor. My son is in electronics and works in aerospace and is dating an engineer (I think she's an engineer).

This is anecdotal, of course, but what I get out of it is that the benefit to the kids depends not on whether the parents stay together, but on what kind of people the parents are.

The evidence supporting divorce over staying together is obsolete.
http://www.divorceresourcecenter.com/unhappy-marriage.htm
There are far too many people looking for a perfect marriage that frankly doesn't exist.
I don't know if the article is saying that research is out of date; they quote a researcher who believes it isn't. The main point of the article seems to be just that divorce is not a rubber-stamp answer to marital troubles, that sometimes it's better to wait a while. I guess that goes back to Ashmoria's post, that it depends on the circumstances.

The evidence supporting divorce over staying together is obsolete.
http://www.divorceresourcecenter.com/unhappy-marriage.htm
There are far too many people looking for a perfect marriage that frankly doesn't exist.

Your evidence that "evidence supporting divorce over staying together is obsolete" is based on a single article about a couple of pundits in 2000?

You may wish to consider better, more recent studies such as this one (http://www.contemporaryfamilies.org/subtemplate.php?t=briefingPapers&ext=LiBriefingPaper).

If they're visibly unhappy, then I think divorce would be better, if it would make each happier.

My opinion doesn't count for much, though, as my parents loved each other.

A question for NSG, which is better for the child, for the parents who don't love one another to stay together for the children's sake, or for them to divorce and go and find someone who'll make them happy and who'll they'll be in love with.

I didn't grow up in a house with divorced parents, my parents are still married and going on 40 years, so I don't really have any real comment on this, per se.

However, I'd have to say if my parents didn't love one another anymore and were only staying together for the sake of my brother and me, I'd want them to get a divorce so that they'll be happy and hopefully find someone who'll they'll love.

In my personal experience, them staying together for the sake of their children ended up making the divorce that much more difficult to handle. As I grew up, I could tell that my parents didn't love each other. They never did anything with each other. Hell, I can't remember the last time they slept in the same bed. My parents are actually in the process of divorce right now.

My point is, I can clearly see that my parents are both unhappy and have been for quite some time. They weren't right for each other (but I'm damn lucky that I'm here right now! :P). I really wish that they would've gotten divorced and lived their lives the way they wanted to. Now there's a lot of bad arguments going around, and both of them have different ways that they could blackmail the other. Now that I can see this, and now that I'm grown up to understand a lot more than I would have as a kid, I wish that I could've stayed ignorant to what everything meant as a child.

I've always felt that your parents getting divorced while you're older was more rough on the child, because they now understood everything that was going to happen. My personal experience though.

Edit: On a side note, there's an ad, while looking at this page, that popped up stating: "Is evil spirit or wrong aura haunting in your house? We can handle and banish evil demons, satan, and negative spells."

Wow.

If the parents relationship is too damaged for them to be able to put on a fairly convincing front, the bad atmosphere would probably cause more damage than an amicable divorce and reasonable access for both parents. For some families, staying together might be the best option, for other families splitting up would be better. Broadly speaking, if the parents are in a situation where it is possible to try and make things work this is for the best, but if this isn't the case no good will come of it. I personally think that some parents at least are too selfish if they don't try and make it work and split up just because they no longer have such strong feelings for each other, but for those of that mentality, resentment and toxic relationships would be the outcome if they were not allowed to split

A question for NSG, which is better for the child, for the parents who don't love one another to stay together for the children's sake, or for them to divorce and go and find someone who'll make them happy and who'll they'll be in love with.

I didn't grow up in a house with divorced parents, my parents are still married and going on 40 years, so I don't really have any real comment on this, per se.

However, I'd have to say if my parents didn't love one another anymore and were only staying together for the sake of my brother and me, I'd want them to get a divorce so that they'll be happy and hopefully find someone who'll they'll love.
Well, if parents hate each other and fight all the time, yeah, for heaven's sake, a divorce or separation is probably a LOT better for the kids.

Aaaand here we go. Anecdotal evidence time.

So my mum and dad divorced when I was about 7. I have tp admit I don't remember much, and it's not the sort of thing I'm going to ask mum about for specifics, but I have a bare-bones outline of what happened. Basically, dad did the typical fall-for-secretary-at-work thing, had the affair. I have a vague recollection of a teary shouting match once, and I think it was about that, but I'm not certain. So they divorced, which meant some serious loss in financial stability. We'd been middle to upper middle class types before then, big house in a nice suburb, but mum's income was nowhere near enough to support that, so we spent about a year living in friend's houses, until we finally found a little place to rent. It was better once the court case was settled and dad decided to pay all his child support in one lump sum, which allowed mum to get the mortgage to buy an acceptable house, but it was hard, no denying it. Dad moved to America with his new woman, and they are still very much in love after about 5 years marriage. He's certainly happier in his new life.

Mum isn't so much happier. I think she still hates her life. She works so hard, and hardly gets any time for herself or us. She tries, god knows she tries. She's there when we really need her, and she provides for us, and I'm so very very thankful for that. I'm pretty sure she actually is Wonder-Woman, it's just that we keep her so busy she hasn't had time to save the world. But I miss having a father sometimes. I've had no strong male role model, and while mum did a better job on me than most two parent families, it might have been better if I'd been able to have a good, strong male role model.

That being said, I think it was better that they divorced. I'm sure that if they'd stayed together for us, I would have noticed before long that there was no love there. I'm also sure that it would have been more unhappy for them. And this way, I managed to avoid the toxic influence ofmy father. I saw him recently, and I can't help but feel completely repulsed by him. I don't care that he wanted a divorce, I can deal with that, but he's a bigot and a selfish prick to boot. My mum's an angel, always have been, and I think we've all turned out well. My older brother is just starting his honours in geology, after completing both a geology and civil engineering course. I like to think I turned out ok, and my sister is lovely. We all get along well, and I think mum had a big impact on that.

So as to whether it's better to stay together, a qualified no. Divorce is probably better overall, but it's by no means ideal, and in the children don't get a kick-ass parent like I did, I have no idea which would be worse.

Since love is temporary anyway, regularly switching partners to revive it seems a tad absurd.

Since love is temporary anyway, regularly switching partners to revive it seems a tad absurd.

Since when is love always temporary?

Since love is temporary anyway, regularly switching partners to revive it seems a tad absurd.

No it isn't.

No it isn't.

Too slow :p

My parents were firm believers in raising independent children capable of reasoning and making decisions on their own. With that in mind, they each fled to different continents one night and left me to figure things out on my own.

No it isn't.

Dont even bother.

Too slow :p

I know, but I had to add to the disagreement with TPA. His idea that love is always temporary shows how little he knows about it.

I know, but I had to add to the disagreement with TPA. His idea that love is always temporary shows how little he knows about it.

Really man, its not worth it.

Since love is temporary anyway, regularly switching partners to revive it seems a tad absurd.

It appears that you have some very strange notions about love, marriage, and divorce.

Really man, its not worth it.

I suppose not. But, like the evolution vs. creationism "debates" it'll happen anyway.

Not using a child as a sounding board for lingering resentment helps. Divorce in itself is rarely the issue, undermining a child's role model certainly is.

Not using a child as a sounding board for lingering resentment helps. Divorce in itself is rarely the issue, undermining a child's role model certainly is.

Definitely don't trash your ex to the kids, up to a point. I tried to keep positive, or at least neutral, about my ex, around my kids. But after a time they started asking questions, like "Dad's always saying bad things about you and you hardly ever say anything about him, how did you get custody of us, if you're so bad and he's not?" I finally got to the point where I had to explain things like emotional and verbal abuse and neglect. You do have to be careful though, there's frequently a fine line between truth and trash talk.

Divorce... there's research evidence to prove it. An attentive and loving single-parent family is better for the child than a conflict-riden two-parent family.

what he/she said

Divorce, a thousand times divorce.

What he said.

A question for NSG, which is better for the child, for the parents who don't love one another to stay together for the children's sake, or for them to divorce and go and find someone who'll make them happy and who'll they'll be in love with.

I didn't grow up in a house with divorced parents, my parents are still married and going on 40 years, so I don't really have any real comment on this, per se.

However, I'd have to say if my parents didn't love one another anymore and were only staying together for the sake of my brother and me, I'd want them to get a divorce so that they'll be happy and hopefully find someone who'll they'll love.

The first. I grew up with my parents in a very unequal relationship, which over the years took its toll on my mother.
Both me and my brothers spent several years hoping my parents would eventually seperate. It was actually to this day the happiest day of my life when my mom told me she was leaving my father.
When she said he had only stayed with him because of us, because kids needed a mother and a father I honestly nearly slapped her. She had put us through all that misery and the nightmares just because she believed that bit of nonsense. I'm still furious about it.

Since love is temporary anyway, regularly switching partners to revive it seems a tad absurd.

There's "Love", and there's "being IN love"

BEING IN LOVE is temporary-it's basically a variant of being in lust.

Love, on the other hand, is fairly permanent, but VERY rare. Most people have this idealistic 'perfection' in mind in which they constantly have the state of "being in love" and nothing else will do-hence, divorce climbs as people get more and more attached to this romantic, unrealistic, and rather silly notion.

The state of LOVE on the other hand, is different, it's cooler and more secure, less prone to disappointments, and horribly, terribly, rare.

Did I mention it's rare?

It is.

Being "In Love" is kind of like an obsession, "Love" is more like...well...

Damn, it's hard to describe. I couldn't seriously imagine a time or place where I would not want to be able to see my wife. I can't imagine what life would be like if she left, and I don't feel any need to get away from her. I still notice a pretty girl, but instead of thinking "ooh, what's she like in bed?" it's more along the lines of the kind of things you think when you see a well-done oil painting-a distant appreciation for beauty, but no real desire to get closer.

Another way to look at it, I suppose, is that you can be friends with, but not want to sleep with, an attractive person who isn't your wife, because you just...don't want to.

It's kind of more a lack of interest, than an extreme interest.

A question for NSG, which is better for the child, for the parents who don't love one another to stay together for the children's sake, or for them to divorce and go and find someone who'll make them happy and who'll they'll be in love with.

I didn't grow up in a house with divorced parents, my parents are still married and going on 40 years, so I don't really have any real comment on this, per se.

However, I'd have to say if my parents didn't love one another anymore and were only staying together for the sake of my brother and me, I'd want them to get a divorce so that they'll be happy and hopefully find someone who'll they'll love.

Well, there's a difference between parents not loving eachother and divorcing and parents not loving eachother, divorcing and finding someone new. My parents are separated and it's the best thing that ever happened to my family, everyone's happier and we're all friends (well, sort of). When parents fight it affects the kids, so divorcing avoids the fighting and will make the children happier.

However, I think parents actively seeking relationships whilst raising a child isn't always the right thing. If the children are older and understand the idea of their parents dating, go ahead, but if dating becomes more important than looking after your kids, it's wrong.

Well, there's a difference between parents not loving eachother and divorcing and parents not loving eachother, divorcing and finding someone new. My parents are separated and it's the best thing that ever happened to my family, everyone's happier and we're all friends (well, sort of). When parents fight it affects the kids, so divorcing avoids the fighting and will make the children happier.

However, I think parents actively seeking relationships whilst raising a child isn't always the right thing. If the children are older and understand the idea of their parents dating, go ahead, but if dating becomes more important than looking after your kids, it's wrong.

I can't say I agree with that. I think the best parent is a happy, balanced and content adult.
Many parents are quite capable to live just for their children, but in single-parent housholds that has two dangers : The parent might start living THROUGH the children, which is what my mother did, she had virtually no life of her own for a good few years, and it put us as kids under savage pressure.
Or the parent might start blaming the children for having to live without a partner.

I'm not saying that this happens in every case, certainly not. But humans have a tendency to pair up, and to generally be happier as part of a pair than when they're on their own. Loneliness can cause depression, and no kid should have to grow up with a depressed parent.

A question for NSG, which is better for the child, for the parents who don't love one another to stay together for the children's sake, or for them to divorce and go and find someone who'll make them happy and who'll they'll be in love with.

I didn't grow up in a house with divorced parents, my parents are still married and going on 40 years, so I don't really have any real comment on this, per se.

However, I'd have to say if my parents didn't love one another anymore and were only staying together for the sake of my brother and me, I'd want them to get a divorce so that they'll be happy and hopefully find someone who'll they'll love.

I guess it sorta does depend on the circumstances. But I subscribe to the Larkin school of thought.

You rae going to fuck your kids up whatever you do, surely then it is better for both you and them, if you made the desicion that makes you happy.

I grew up in a large family, and all of us kids knew that mum and dad would get divorced as soon as we where able to fend for ourselves, so no great supprises when it happend.

I really don't know how this affected my life, but all of my siblings sem quite umm normal to me.

There's "Love", and there's "being IN love"

BEING IN LOVE is temporary-it's basically a variant of being in lust.

Love, on the other hand, is fairly permanent, but VERY rare. Most people have this idealistic 'perfection' in mind in which they constantly have the state of "being in love" and nothing else will do-hence, divorce climbs as people get more and more attached to this romantic, unrealistic, and rather silly notion.

The state of LOVE on the other hand, is different, it's cooler and more secure, less prone to disappointments, and horribly, terribly, rare.

Did I mention it's rare?

It is.

Being "In Love" is kind of like an obsession, "Love" is more like...well...

Damn, it's hard to describe. I couldn't seriously imagine a time or place where I would not want to be able to see my wife. I can't imagine what life would be like if she left, and I don't feel any need to get away from her. I still notice a pretty girl, but instead of thinking "ooh, what's she like in bed?" it's more along the lines of the kind of things you think when you see a well-done oil painting-a distant appreciation for beauty, but no real desire to get closer.

Another way to look at it, I suppose, is that you can be friends with, but not want to sleep with, an attractive person who isn't your wife, because you just...don't want to.

It's kind of more a lack of interest, than an extreme interest.

Im glad you know all of our feelings.

A question for NSG, which is better for the child, for the parents who don't love one another to stay together for the children's sake, or for them to divorce and go and find someone who'll make them happy and who'll they'll be in love with.

My mum divorced my father when I was 10. At first I thought it was a bad idea, I was a little girl and I wanted my father to be with me and my brother forever.

Years after I realized my mum did the correct thing. And if I'm the way I am now, and I am where I am right now in life, I must thank my mother for making such a difficult decision and separating herself, and us, from the horrible man my dad became along the way.

Having seen a few divorces in my life, which have negatively impacted my life, I would say that I am biased towards marriage and sticking it through the tough times. I can't tell you how screwed up my sister and I have been made, being forced to choose between parents in situations. Its exactly the reason I am not going home for Thanksgiving,and more than likely why I will spend only a little time at home for Christmas.

In general stay together until the children are 18 turns out better (not counting cases of abuse and the like).


Though statistically if they had not married at all(single parent) is better then both a divorce or a troubled marriage household.

I can't say I agree with that. I think the best parent is a happy, balanced and content adult.
Many parents are quite capable to live just for their children, but in single-parent housholds that has two dangers : The parent might start living THROUGH the children, which is what my mother did, she had virtually no life of her own for a good few years, and it put us as kids under savage pressure.
Or the parent might start blaming the children for having to live without a partner.

I'm not saying that this happens in every case, certainly not. But humans have a tendency to pair up, and to generally be happier as part of a pair than when they're on their own. Loneliness can cause depression, and no kid should have to grow up with a depressed parent.

A happy, balanced and content parent doesn't need a sexual partner to make them feel less lonely. And someone who lives through their child or becomes depressed probably wasn't a happy, balanced and content adult in the first place...

Having seen a few divorces in my life, which have negatively impacted my life, I would say that I am biased towards marriage and sticking it through the tough times. I can't tell you how screwed up my sister and I have been made, being forced to choose between parents in situations. Its exactly the reason I am not going home for Thanksgiving,and more than likely why I will spend only a little time at home for Christmas.

Interesting.

However, this thread has given us a nice unofficial poll of NS. So far, we have:

One person who feels it wasn't the best idea at the time (You)
Seven people who feel it was better than the alternative (Nanatsu, Cabra West, Amor Pulchritudo, Svalbardania, Anti-Social Darwinism, Euroslavia, and myself, assuming I haven't missed anyone)

The evidence, so far, seems fairly conclusive. The experiences of NSG have been overwhelmingly in favour of divorce as the better option for children in such cases.

When we ask the question of whether or not divorce is more harmful than staying together, we really need a database that indicates whether or not a couple is considering divorce but does not divorce.

If we compare marriages to divorces, which are often unhappy, then I don't think we're particularly likely to find the effect of divorce, as much as the effect of parents having a poor relationship vs parents having a typical relationship. Such has been the method for a number of studies.

I do think it's important for people to get out of unhealthy relationships, and avoid modeling them for their children to emulate later. I believe studies have shown that children learn bad habits from their parents...

A happy, balanced and content parent doesn't need a sexual partner to make them feel less lonely. And someone who lives through their child or becomes depressed probably wasn't a happy, balanced and content adult in the first place...
Parents who live vicariously through their children are not limited to single parents.

Parents who live vicariously through their children are not limited to single parents.

Of course not. I never said they were!

Interesting.

However, this thread has given us a nice unofficial poll of NS. So far, we have:

One person who feels it wasn't the best idea at the time (You)
Seven people who feel it was better than the alternative (Nanatsu, Cabra West, Amor Pulchritudo, Svalbardania, Anti-Social Darwinism, Euroslavia, and myself, assuming I haven't missed anyone)

The evidence, so far, seems fairly conclusive. The experiences of NSG have been overwhelmingly in favour of divorce as the better option for children in such cases.

Yup.

There's "Love", and there's "being IN love"

BEING IN LOVE is temporary-it's basically a variant of being in lust.

Love, on the other hand, is fairly permanent, but VERY rare. Most people have this idealistic 'perfection' in mind in which they constantly have the state of "being in love" and nothing else will do-hence, divorce climbs as people get more and more attached to this romantic, unrealistic, and rather silly notion.

The state of LOVE on the other hand, is different, it's cooler and more secure, less prone to disappointments, and horribly, terribly, rare.

Did I mention it's rare?

It is.

Being "In Love" is kind of like an obsession, "Love" is more like...well...

Damn, it's hard to describe. I couldn't seriously imagine a time or place where I would not want to be able to see my wife. I can't imagine what life would be like if she left, and I don't feel any need to get away from her. I still notice a pretty girl, but instead of thinking "ooh, what's she like in bed?" it's more along the lines of the kind of things you think when you see a well-done oil painting-a distant appreciation for beauty, but no real desire to get closer.

Another way to look at it, I suppose, is that you can be friends with, but not want to sleep with, an attractive person who isn't your wife, because you just...don't want to.

It's kind of more a lack of interest, than an extreme interest.

I wouldn't call being "in love" temporary, or "love" rare.

My parents' marriage lasted almost 25 years. It can be seen to have "ended" only because my dad died. My mom still wears her wedding ring. Doesn't seem very "temporary" to me. And believe me, they were definitely in love. I hope to have a marriage as good as theirs.

I wouldn't call being "in love" temporary, or "love" rare.

My parents' marriage lasted almost 25 years. It can be seen to have "ended" only because my dad died. My mom still wears her wedding ring. Doesn't seem very "temporary" to me. And believe me, they were definitely in love. I hope to have a marriage as good as theirs.

:fluffle:

it depends on the circumstances...

Agreed, nearly everything is determined by circumstance.

Don't stay together for the kids, you will only make yourself and them miserable.

A happy, balanced and content parent doesn't need a sexual partner to make them feel less lonely. And someone who lives through their child or becomes depressed probably wasn't a happy, balanced and content adult in the first place...

Really? How do you know that?
People don't generally become balanced once and then remain so for the rest of their lives. They are balanced if they are currently in a positive situation; a negative situation, such as a break-up and the longing for a partner is very likely to unbalance them and can have very severe effects on their mental health. Children are no substitute for a partner.

Having seen a few divorces in my life, which have negatively impacted my life, I would say that I am biased towards marriage and sticking it through the tough times. I can't tell you how screwed up my sister and I have been made, being forced to choose between parents in situations. Its exactly the reason I am not going home for Thanksgiving,and more than likely why I will spend only a little time at home for Christmas.

Are you really naive enough to believe that if you're parents had stayed together they wouldn't have tried to force you to choose sides in their day-to-day war?
I think the fact that they made you do that AFTER they broke up is a pretty good indicator that neither of them had any reservations of using you against the partner...

People are whiny and want everything on a silver platter these days. 9 out of 10 people get married like idiots that's why marriages fail. Then they have to drag a new person or persons down with them one way or another. Also, they want to have their cake and eat it to. Nevermind the tykes that spawn without even know what they're doing, but people who think they want children and very intentionally do so trying to start a family, then receding to their own needs when a fairy tale doesn't materialize; they can rationalize, whine and make excuses for eternity, they're still very wrong. And divorce being better than staying together is a cop out, it's not necessarily true. It was already said early in the thread, it depends. If you're talking about violence and spouse abuse, obviously that's not better than divorce for the children. But a stable house certainly is better than, let's say, divorce with the parents railing against each other and using the child as their war agent; or even just one parent having custody and intentionally maligning the child to the other parent. That stuff is quite common.

But a stable house certainly is better than, let's say, divorce with the parents railing against each other and using the child as their war agent;

In an unhappy marriage the likelihood is about the same, and it will last longer.

In an unhappy marriage the likelihood is about the same, and it will last longer.

Not if they're mature adults, but with that we're back to square one. If they were there would be no problem to begin with. Either way, the blame is on them.

Not if they're mature adults, but with that we're back to square one. If they were there would be no problem to begin with. Either way, the blame is on them.

If they're mature, they won't use the kids to fight their wars for them and have the common sense to separate in order to de-escalate a bad situation.

If they're mature, they won't use the kids to fight their wars for them and have the common sense to separate in order to de-escalate a bad situation.

Of course they will, but the point is divorce isn't necessarily better straight down the line because using their kids in divorce is just as likely as doing it in an unhappy marriage; no, I would say the former is even more likely and more common. I still cannot fathom how anybody would get married to somebody they'd eventually despise that much. I know it's not technically the issue here, but dammit, it's certainly the root of the problem.

Really? How do you know that?
People don't generally become balanced once and then remain so for the rest of their lives. They are balanced if they are currently in a positive situation; a negative situation, such as a break-up and the longing for a partner is very likely to unbalance them and can have very severe effects on their mental health. Children are no substitute for a partner.

It doesn't matter if children are no substitute. You have an obligation to your children. If you would rather fuck around dating than look after your children, it makes you a bad parent.

Of course they will, but the point is divorce isn't necessarily better straight down the line because using their kids in divorce is just as likely as doing it in an unhappy marriage; no, I would say the former is even more likely and more common. I still cannot fathom how anybody would get married to somebody they'd eventually despise that much. I know it's not technically the issue here, but dammit, it's certainly the root of the problem.

People change. And people generally have NO idea how much they or their partners will change.
Your own post is the best example for it. Few people are capable to imagine who they will be and what they will be like 5 years from now. Some couples manage to go through the changes together and to keep close, and some fail at it. That's life.

Not if they're mature adults, but with that we're back to square one. If they were there would be no problem to begin with. Either way, the blame is on them.

Mature and adult are two words that commonly seem to be unassociated with each other these days.

To be serious though, there are many people who aren't mature that will resort to such tactics anyway. Some people marry thinking they are in love or making the (notably stupid) mistake of thinking things will change to how they want, when those don't happen then the marriage fails. Marriages fail for more reasons than that too, some people get divorces because of money for instance.

It doesn't matter if children are no substitute. You have an obligation to your children. If you would rather fuck around dating than look after your children, it makes you a bad parent.

So looking for love is an irresponsible thing to do for a parent? Trying to find a partner to become part of the family, to share the responsibilities with and to help out is so despicable?

It doesn't matter if children are no substitute. You have an obligation to your children. If you would rather fuck around dating than look after your children, it makes you a bad parent.

Ideally one would find the perfect balance between taking care of their children and getting back into having a love life. But what would I know; I don't have kids OR a love life...

People change. And people generally have NO idea how much they or their partners will change.
Your own post is the best example for it. Few people are capable to imagine who they will be and what they will be like 5 years from now. Some couples manage to go through the changes together and to keep close, and some fail at it. That's life.

You know, in some very basic level, I don't agree that people change. They do not. Note that in this sense I'm not speaking of actions, but the actual basic character of a person. They may become jaded or traumatized, but I do believe that ultimately they are what they are, what they manage to be, and/or what they choose to be. The problem is that too many people don't bother knowing the person they commit to. Yes, I know marriages fail and sometimes the inevitable happens, but nowhere near do I believe is fact that most of the times it's an inevitable and inexplicable shift from an ideal union to a total loss. No, I don't buy that. Most people just refuse to know what they're getting into and instead hope for the best too quickly which then ends up to be a mistake. I myself won't even get into a committed relationship if I sense there is deep seeded discord. Which is why I will probably die a bachelor. That's really the only feasible explanation and answer from people's stupidity I see in this. It's the basic urge to not be lonely, they settle and get drunk on the chemical responses of infatuation with the belief that it's mystical romance that can never be wronged by the physical world. Romantic love is no more magical than sexual responses. Sorry folks, that's a scientific fact.

Mature and adult are two words that commonly seem to be unassociated with each other these days.

To be serious though, there are many people who aren't mature that will resort to such tactics anyway. Some people marry thinking they are in love or making the (notably stupid) mistake of thinking things will change to how they want, when those don't happen then the marriage fails. Marriages fail for more reasons than that too, some people get divorces because of money for instance.

I agree. I posted after this came up but I think the above I wrote responds to this.

You know, in some very basic level, I don't agree that people change. They do not. Note that in this sense I'm not speaking of actions, but the actual basic character of a person. They may become jaded or traumatized, but I do believe that ultimately they are what they are, what they manage to be, and/or what they choose to be. The problem is that too many people don't bother knowing the person they commit to. Yes, I know marriages fail and sometimes the inevitable happens, but nowhere near do I believe is fact that most of the times it's an inevitable and inexplicable shift from an ideal union to a total loss. No, I don't buy that. Most people just refuse to know what they're getting into and instead hope for the best too quickly which then ends up to be a mistake. I myself won't even get into a committed relationship if I sense there is deep seeded discord. Which is why I will probably die a bachelor. That's really the only feasible explanation and answer from people's stupidity I see in this. It's the basic urge to not be lonely, they settle and get drunk on the chemical responses of infatuation with the belief that it's mystical romance that can never be wronged by the physical world. Romantic love is no more magical than sexual responses. Sorry folks, that's a scientific fact.


I know from personal experience how much people change.
Yes, they do maintain certain characteristic tendencies throughout their lives, such as being likely to take risks or to be a good talker. However, apart from that people change greatly. Immensely, even.
I have seen my father grow from an affectionate parent, always ready to play with the kids, always there for a hug or cuddle, concerned about the wellfare of his family and a deeply religious person into somebody who abused his children and wife, got violent for a slight affront to his pride, would kick our cat whenever it got in his way, and ending up refusing to contribute anything from his rather extensive salary towards his children's education. We're talking a timeframe of about 10 years here.

I've also seen myself change from a frightened, painfully shy, religious person with absolutely no self-esteem, always eager to please anybody no matter what the personal cost, to an open-minded, self-aware, secure and happy atheist.
That took about 5 years altogether.

I know from personal experience how much people change.
Yes, they do maintain certain characteristic tendencies throughout their lives, such as being likely to take risks or to be a good talker. However, apart from that people change greatly. Immensely, even.
I have seen my father grow from an affectionate parent, always ready to play with the kids, always there for a hug or cuddle, concerned about the wellfare of his family and a deeply religious person into somebody who abused his children and wife, got violent for a slight affront to his pride, would kick our cat whenever it got in his way, and ending up refusing to contribute anything from his rather extensive salary towards his children's education. We're talking a timeframe of about 10 years here.

I've also seen myself change from a frightened, painfully shy, religious person with absolutely no self-esteem, always eager to please anybody no matter what the personal cost, to an open-minded, self-aware, secure and happy atheist.
That took about 5 years altogether.

I'm talking even deeper than things like that. If your father was that way, he was probably that way all along. If he wasn't, then an outside source forced him to leave himself behind (i'm talking something like a health issue, not another person, not unless they are forced to suffer them and never by their choosing). At any rate, I believe it's far more likely to be the same person as always eventually coming through instead of an outside source.

Those changes you mention are actions, like I said, I'm not talking about actions, but basic character. The point I'm trying to make is that if you know this in a person, you may perhaps be able to know if you can "work with it" or not, regardless of what happens. But I think people just fail to see that deep into people.

I'm talking even deeper than things like that. If your father was that way, he was probably that way all along. If he wasn't, then an outside source forced him to leave himself behind (i'm talking something like a health issue, not another person, not unless they are forced to suffer them and never by their choosing). At any rate, I believe it's far more likely to be the same person as always eventually coming through instead of an outside source.

Those changes you mention are actions, like I said, I'm not talking about actions, but basic character. The point I'm trying to make is that if you know this in a person, you may perhaps be able to know if you can "work with it" or not, regardless of what happens. But I think people just fail to see that deep into people.

So changing from a loving, caring person to an abusive asshole is a negligeable small aspect, not their basic character, and therefore should have no influence on the relationship?

I'm talking even deeper than things like that. If your father was that way, he was probably that way all along. If he wasn't, then an outside source forced him to leave himself behind (i'm talking something like a health issue, not another person, not unless they are forced to suffer them and never by their choosing). At any rate, I believe it's far more likely to be the same person as always eventually coming through instead of an outside source.

Those changes you mention are actions, like I said, I'm not talking about actions, but basic character. The point I'm trying to make is that if you know this in a person, you may perhaps be able to know if you can "work with it" or not, regardless of what happens. But I think people just fail to see that deep into people.

Thats not just a change of actions, that is a change of character... actions define character and vise versa.

So changing from a loving, caring person to an abusive asshole is a negligeable small aspect, not their basic character, and therefore should have no influence on the relationship?

Don't put words in my mouth (or keyboard, rather). What people post up on a forum should be taken with a grain of salt. Quite frankly, that's not my business and I don't see a sense in speculating about people I've never met. My sole point is word for word what I wrote, nothing more.

My parents divorced when I was really young, and then my mother had a relationship a few years later with a guy who was pretty bad, but I won't go into details here. Nonetheless, it was probably better to grow up in a single parent household than with my father around, who has taken pretty much zero interest in me and my sister ever. But it definately depends on the circumstances.

So looking for love is an irresponsible thing to do for a parent? Trying to find a partner to become part of the family, to share the responsibilities with and to help out is so despicable?

No, looking for love is not irresponsible. However, looking for love whilst neglecting your children's needs is irresponsible. I think that if you choose to separate or divorce, you don't need to find someone to "share the responsibilities with". It's not their kid, it's your's.

Ideally one would find the perfect balance between taking care of their children and getting back into having a love life. But what would I know; I don't have kids OR a love life...

Oh, of course, it would be good to have a balance, but in my experience with friends, it has never been balanced. Dating and looking after kids are two difficult things to juggle, but no matter what, the kids must always come first.

If anyone has an issue with putting their kids first, they should have used a condom.

Thats not just a change of actions, that is a change of character... actions define character and vise versa.

They define projected character, not true character necessarily, because it's not black and white. It's not the same to let somebody die, or even kill them than to irk them, even chronically; it's not the same to be somebody's classic doormat than to risk your life for them when they treated you badly; and then there's everything in between and even further beyond those extremes. One single action does not define the character at the level that I'm talking about, esp. not in the middle ground sort of stuff. An extreme may be different.

Don't put words in my mouth (or keyboard, rather). What people post up on a forum should be taken with a grain of salt. Quite frankly, that's not my business and I don't see a sense in speculating about people I've never met. My sole point is word for word what I wrote, nothing more.

Well, in that case I would submit that character, while it might be in essence unchangeable, has very little bearings on relationships, where the words and actions of the individual are deciding on success or failure.

No, looking for love is not irresponsible. However, looking for love whilst neglecting your children's needs is irresponsible. I think that if you choose to separate or divorce, you don't need to find someone to "share the responsibilities with". It's not their kid, it's your's.



Oh, of course, it would be good to have a balance, but in my experience with friends, it has never been balanced. Dating and looking after kids are two difficult things to juggle, but no matter what, the kids must always come first.

If anyone has an issue with putting their kids first, they should have used a condom.

If on the off chance I did have any children that i was the primary caretaker of, I wouldn't even become serious with someone whom my children didn't accept. I generally don't get serious with anyone the people closest to me don't accept now and I don't see that changing with me kids.

Anyhow...

I agree with putting the children first, but I also believe that taking time for yourself is paramount. If you don't take time for yourself you end up hating the people you give all your time to... this has happened to me before.

Well, in that case I would submit that character, while it might be in essence unchangeable, has very little bearings on relationships, where the words and actions of the individual are deciding on success or failure.

The part about relationship goes without saying, almost, if we assume I'm correct about the part that people are unwilling or unable to know what they're working with by knowing the character. You may believe that we're working blind and relationships are pure random chance and that it's impossible to speculate compatibility based on character, but it's not something I'd agree with.

They define projected character, not true character necessarily, because it's not black and white. It's not the same to let somebody die, or even kill them than to irk them, even chronically; it's not the same to be somebody's classic doormat than to risk your life for them when they treated you badly; and then there's everything in between and even further beyond those extremes. One single action does not define the character at the level that I'm talking about, esp. not in the middle ground sort of stuff. An extreme may be different.

What she was talking about is a true change to character. He went from exhibiting traits of a loving caring person to the traits of Oscar the Grouch meets Bob the Bully in a relatively short time span. ALL of his actions changed and not just some.

The part about relationship goes without saying, almost, if we assume I'm correct about the part that people are unwilling or unable to know what they're working with by knowing the character. You may believe that we're working blind and relationships are pure random chance and that it's impossible to speculate compatibility based on character, but it's not something I'd agree with.

So how could knowing my father's character, who at the time was, as described, a friendly, religious, helpful and caring person, have helped to know he would turn violent and abusive about a decade down the line?

What she was talking about is a true change to character. He went from exhibiting traits of a loving caring person to the traits of Oscar the Grouch meets Bob the Bully in a relatively short time span. ALL of his actions changed and not just some.

I've already tried to establish that we seem to be having different notions of what we mean by "character".

So how could knowing my father's character, who at the time was, as described, a friendly, religious, helpful and caring person, have helped to know he would turn violent and abusive about a decade down the line?

You didn't choose your father. I don't think it's relevant here.

You didn't choose your father. I don't think it's relevant here.

Well, you keep claiming that character is unchangeable and that it's possible to know what a person's character is.
If that's the case, how can someone be sociable and caring for well over 10 years, and then slowly turn into an unsociable and violent person, to the extend his own mother doesn't even know any more what went on?

I've already tried to establish that we seem to be having different notions of what we mean by "character".

Yes, but you haven't yet stated what kind of definition of character you are using...

Well, you keep claiming that character is unchangeable and that it's possible to know what a person's character is.

Only in the context of a father/mother-husband/wife relationship, not parent/child. The child knowing the parent is moot for many reasons. Mainly because the child never chooses a parent so it doesn't matter, and also because a child cannot hope to have that much emotional intelligence. I was only talking about people choosing their mates, husband/wife, etc.

Yes, but you haven't yet stated what kind of definition of character you are using...

I did. I don't know how else I could put it.

I wouldn't call being "in love" temporary, or "love" rare.

My parents' marriage lasted almost 25 years. It can be seen to have "ended" only because my dad died. My mom still wears her wedding ring. Doesn't seem very "temporary" to me. And believe me, they were definitely in love. I hope to have a marriage as good as theirs.

Yep and my wife and myself have been married for 18 years now. If anything the longer it goes on the stronger the love becomes.

A question for NSG, which is better for the child, for the parents who don't love one another to stay together for the children's sake, or for them to divorce and go and find someone who'll make them happy and who'll they'll be in love with.

I didn't grow up in a house with divorced parents, my parents are still married and going on 40 years, so I don't really have any real comment on this, per se.

However, I'd have to say if my parents didn't love one another anymore and were only staying together for the sake of my brother and me, I'd want them to get a divorce so that they'll be happy and hopefully find someone who'll they'll love.

Married people should stay married for better or for worse just like they agreed to do. This teaches children accountability and the importance of family over happiness. It teaches them discipline by example. Yep discipline, accountability, responsibility, and keeping to your word are good lessons to teach our young.

Married people should stay married for better or for worse just like they agreed to do. This teaches children accountability and the importance of family over happiness. It teaches them discipline by example. Yep discipline, accountability, responsibility, and keeping to your word are good lessons to teach our young.

What a load of crock. I hope you never bear children.

my mum and dad divorced when I was 14 and my brother was 11 they had been staying together for years just for us, I'm so glad that they were divorced.

an atmosphere disappeared from my house almost instantly making it a happier house, so while I was upset for a long time even then I knew it was for the best if only because for the first time in years my parents were happy and in stable working relationships.

as long as both parties are mature about the divorce and make it a point of honour that the children see both parents regularly and know it want there fault in any way shape or form then divorce in that situation is by far and away the best option.

children are mainly taught by there parents how to act in a relationship and how can they be taught well by two people who don't actually love each other.

and any argument that divorce shows an easy option for dealing with problems is rubbish, my girlfriend has recently fallen out of college and into debt without a job so to say the least you might say she is going through a tough time, it's caused a lot of stress between us, but I still cant imagine life without her.

all you need is love lol

Married people should stay married for better or for worse just like they agreed to do. This teaches children accountability and the importance of family over happiness. It teaches them discipline by example. Yep discipline, accountability, responsibility, and keeping to your word are good lessons to teach our young.

Utter bullshit. Accountability for what? How does making your family unhappy teach the importance of family?

Have you ever been married/had kids?

Utter bullshit. Accountability for what? How does making your family unhappy teach the importance of family?

Have you ever been married/had kids?

I am married. We are waiting until we are financially ready to have children. I want 1 and she wants 2 kids. Marriage is serious business and not to be entered into lightly. Children need to learn that if one marries in haste they may regret at their leisure.

Marriage is the very bedrock of the family and of society. We need good firm marriages. I am no fan of the no-fault divorces that are so readily available to all of the fools out there that did not take their marital duties seriously.

An unhappy family teaches the children that they ought to make certain that they want to spend their life with the person they decide marry before they get married. I do not think that this is rocket science. This is pretty basic.

What a load of crock. I hope you never bear children.

That is a nasty thing to say.:(

An unhappy family teaches the children that they ought to make certain that they want to spend their life with the person they decide marry before they get married.

Remember kids, be absolutely sure you will feel the same way in 50 years. And if it turns out you don't feel that way, well, you deserve it for making such a foolish mistake of not being able to see into the future.

What a load of shit.

That is a nasty thing to say.:(

given the values you'd impart to your children, I think it's a wise thing to say.

Married people should stay married for better or for worse just like they agreed to do. This teaches children accountability and the importance of family over happiness. It teaches them discipline by example. Yep discipline, accountability, responsibility, and keeping to your word are good lessons to teach our young.

Fuck off.

If the marriage isn't working, it will actively harm the children if you try and stay together. Actively harming someone is a damn sight worse that failing to uphold your vows.

My parents were married for 18 years. For the last 7 problems have been building. For the last 3 or 4 they've been noticeable day to day, and for the last couple they were downright obvious. Now they've separated, and the atmosphere in the house is a lot healthier, a lot less pained.

It's been better for my mother, better for us children, and better for my father. Why the hell should 'keeping one's word' be put above that? And how does staying together in an actively damaging relationship teach 'discipline, accountability, and responsibility'?

Married people should stay married for better or for worse just like they agreed to do. This teaches children accountability and the importance of family over happiness. It teaches them discipline by example. Yep discipline, accountability, responsibility, and keeping to your word are good lessons to teach our young.

As well as teaching them how to play mental games, not to trust anyone, how not to solve conflicts but let them escalate, visciousness, vindictivness and in cases violence.

Is that how you think kids should grow up?

I am married. We are waiting until we are financially ready to have children. I want 1 and she wants 2 kids. Marriage is serious business and not to be entered into lightly. Children need to learn that if one marries in haste they may regret at their leisure.

Marriage is the very bedrock of the family and of society. We need good firm marriages. I am no fan of the no-fault divorces that are so readily available to all of the fools out there that did not take their marital duties seriously.

An unhappy family teaches the children that they ought to make certain that they want to spend their life with the person they decide marry before they get married. I do not think that this is rocket science. This is pretty basic.

An unhappy family teaches children that no matter how well you know your partner, it can still end in shatters. And that there will be no way out short of killing your partner...

That is a nasty thing to say.:(

Not really.
About 50% of marriages these days end in divorce. A good number of those that don't divorce don't work out well either and the parents only stay together for religious/financial/ soicial reasons.
Chances are, your marriage might turn sour somewhere down the line. If you have kids, but decide to stay together, they'll be in the same situation I had to be in for years of my life. I can't begin to tell you how much that has messed me up, and how utterly and totally relieved I was when my parents finally did separate. My life started at that point.

I wouldn't wish the same experiene on anyone, ever. So it might be better for you not to have kids.

Are you really naive enough to believe that if you're parents had stayed together they wouldn't have tried to force you to choose sides in their day-to-day war?
I think the fact that they made you do that AFTER they broke up is a pretty good indicator that neither of them had any reservations of using you against the partner...

Never once when they were married did they ever pull any crap like that.

After the divorce, pride set in. They always had to be better than the other, and the used us kids to determine who was better. It was the bitter feelings of the divorce that led them to such childish behaviors.

Never once when they were married did they ever pull any crap like that.

After the divorce, pride set in. They always had to be better than the other, and the used us kids to determine who was better. It was the bitter feelings of the divorce that led them to such childish behaviors.

So they never fought before they separated, only afterwards?