Can loveless marriages be in some cases better than divorce? If the marriage has children and neither partner is abusive wouldn’t it be more beneficial for the children that the marriage stay together? After all single-parent households’ children are significantly poorer than two parent households and even if the parents do not love each anymore in the intense way they can still like each other as friends or partners in raising children.
It depends on the situation. The pretty much standard answer to any of these questions.
If made-for-TV movies of the late seventies and early eighties are any guide, the children can always reunite their parents by pretending to get kidnapped. Wacky hijinks will follow.
I’m interested in this subject since it totally applies to me. My husband and I have 4 children, and a loveless marriage. I think I am doing the right thing by just sucking it up and sticking it out for the sake of the kids. There isn’t a lot of conflict, and no abuse.
My parents had a loveless marriage with minimal conflict. I’m glad they divorced.
That’s pretty much the end of it as long as all you are concerned about are the children.
That is what the OP asked about.
Of course, there is no evidence that a divorce ending a low-conflict marriage leads to greater happiness than staying in the marriage -
Regards,
Shodan
Loveless marriages should be banned. 
Better for who needs to be clarified, is the OP only asking if loveless marriage is better than divorce for children?
The OP specified “they can still like each other as friends or partners in raising children”; however, raising children as friends isn’t why some of those people got married in the first place and it’s certainly possible to parent as friends once divorced.
That’s an important point, and I think I witnessed this sort of thing in my parents’ marriage. They went through a period when they were deeply unhappy with each other (even though outright conflict was minimal). They stayed together (“for the kids” I think), and then as the years passed a funny thing happened: they became inseparable best friends.
For selfish reasons, I am glad they stayed together. I think a divorce would have been pretty traumatic for me. And in the end, I think they made the right decision for themselves, too.
Well, shoot, thats interesting. 2/3 sounds a lot more encouraging than I would have thought.
This happened with mine, too. I remember some doozy arguments when I was a tyke. Nowadays, they’re like newlyweds.
It sickens me:)
I’m highly suspicious of the conclusions. They also point out that the same for your the last point you quoted is true the other way around - not only were unhappy couples quite likely to be happy five years later, but happy couples were quite likely to be unhappy five years later. Too, the point seems to be being made that we should assume that a person evading an unhappy marriage should, after leaving that situation, essentially be “healed” of their unhappiness, which generally isn’t how things work, because a traumatic or simply unpleasant experience is affecting even after it’s over. Beyond that, there’s the possibility not when married for the person in question to find some new person to be happy with, which doesn’t seem to be taken into account.
I’m pretty much always suspicious of studies which don’t set out their methodology and statistics, too - not enough to assume problems, but it’s less rigorous.
Huh. I’m kina surprised by the folks who say that their own folks stuck it out and ended up just fine.
I’m currently married, and while I love my wife, she likes me more as a friend she occasionally has sex with. I haven’t been told "I love you"by her in just over a year now. She actively wanted me to move, and we had decided on divorce a while back.
She has since changed her mind, but I have been contemplating moving next Summer anyways, as I don’t want to be stuck in the Friend Zone for life, while she persues a side relationshion (cheating, again).
Shit’s just complicated, isn’t it?
Maybe I should wait it out.
No, you really shouldn’t… although I suspect any number of happily married men would be delighted if they were occasionally getting sex. 
Have you considered, well, romancing her? I’m not joking. This is kinda part of my views on marriage. (Tristan, the rest of this is more general, so don’t think I’m just talking to or about you.)
For starters, love has nothing to do with it, at least in the vulgar and silly sense that people usually think of.
What people so often call love is Eros. It’s passion, often lust, but that is not love. It is only one part of love, and frnakly the weakest part. That doesn’t mean it’s irrelevant, but that kind of feeling is always bound to leave. It can never stay in any relationship.
I tend to see two kinds of marriages, and which you fall into usually determines whether your marriage survives. There are unions based almost entirely on Eros. In another age this wasn’t quite so bad. People had a lot more family support. They also understood that marriage was about finding a good mate to have children with, so they didn’t have to be Best Friends for Life.
Now, in some ways, it’s good that people do put more thought into whom they are marrying, and not just finding a good-looking bride or a man with money. But I think they were a little more mature about marriage before the advent of easy divorce. Marriage is really about children - about the FAMILY. It’s not about you.
Love, ultimately, is what you do, not how you feel. Eros is always passing; it never stays forever. But just because it goes doesn’t mean it can never come around again. Your wife or husband needs to know you care, and want to be part of a family with him or her. Periodic romancing is part of that, as is sex. When I hear about couples who substitute rote sex once a month for a wild fling several times a week (or even more ), I start to wonder what they’re doing with their lives, and what they expect is going to happen.
Well, they’re not thinking about it. They’re not feeling “romantic”, so they don’t make time. But it’s what you do which creates that feeling.
So, in short, I’d like to see…
People choosing whom they get married to carefully, based on long-term things like a husband’s ability to plan financially, or a wife’s kind and generous character. Phsyical attractiveness should certainly play a part: whether you (as I do) believe in Christ or in nothing but matter, we are bodiful creatures. I will have none of this cheap, latter-day pseudo-spirituality which tries to ignore the meat. Friendship and passion are helpful but not neccessary - plenty of cultures don’t indulge much in either. Respect and honest care are much more important.
A concerted effort to enjoy each other’s company. This can be doing various fun things together, but it’s just as much to set out and do everyday things together. Wives, sit down and watch a game (or at least read a book while he watches or play WoW together or something). Husbands, go ahead and travel to the store and pick out new drapes. You may be there just to carry things and approve of whatever she wants.
And both should be prepared to accept that the other party cares about them personally, not about the actual thing. Men, she doesn’t care about the Super Bowl (well, some women, anyway) and Ladies, he doesn’t care whether you go with Pumpkin Spice or Citrus Crush decor.
A willingness to sacrifice for the family and respect of each other’s different kinds of sacrifices. Men on average simply do not clean and don’t require as much cleanliness: deal with it ladies. He’s probably willing to handle the investments and other planning. Guys, you had a long day and probably did work very hard. Give her a hug and see after her anyway; these days she probably works almost as much and the kids naturally tend to demand more of her time than yours.
I wonder how much of this has to do with how they define “high-conflict.” If the kids are blindsided and don’t see the divorce coming (“Whaddya mean, you’re getting divorced? I thought we were a happy family!”) then that’s gotta be a helluva lot more traumatic than kids who see the divorce coming a mile away (“Well, that’ll be a relief. No more falling asleep to the sweet sound of yelling and screaming!”) So for that study Shodan quoted … wouldn’t the “low-conflict” parents still be divorcing over something even if the kids hadn’t witnessed fights and arguments?
For the OP: a kid’s first and most important introduction to how to form long-term romantic relationships comes from their parents. If the parental role models are in a loveless marriage - no matter how conflict-free - then what do you think that means for the kids looking at their example?
As someone else pointed out, but I think bears repeating, if the issue is parenting as friends, then there’s no reason that can’t be done out of two households instead of one. Divorced people can be friends. In fact, I dated a guy in high school whose parents were divorced. They were as friendly and warm to each other as could be, and he told me that started once they were divorced and didn’t share a house anymore. They just Could. Not. Be. Married. to each other, but they made excellent parents.
I think it depends on the types of arguments, and like what was said before, on the definition of “high-conflict”. There were a couple of years in my childhood that my parents had lots of conflict/arguments/outbursts/etc. I thought they were going to divorce. They didn’t, but not for me, I think. My dad had already divorced once, he probably was not interested in going through it again. And I think whatever it was, they worked it out. Also, while those outbursts were very scary when I was younger, I realize now that compared to other couples, my parents’ arguing wasn’t really that “high-conflict”. Kids can tend to color situations and be more easily impressed. What is probably a rough patch that everybody has in long-term relationships (parent-child, siblings, friends, couple), the kids can think “OMG, it’s the end of the world!”
Now the arguments and discussions are always there, but not like before. And I think, even through the worst part, during the periods of calm, they were really a couple. Like mentioned before, they romanced each other. They still do, it’s sickening.
Lastly, wasn’t a thread some weeks ago, where many people said they knew their marriages were over… precisely when they had something perceived as “no conflict marriage”? When the desire to work out differences and compromise was not just there anymore…
Also, I second the divorce people can be friends. My dad is currently friends with his first wife and mother of his siblings. My mom is also her friend. When she was sick and needed someone to take her to the doctors, my parents did that. When mom got sick and was hospitalized, dad called his ex and asked for help. She stayed with mom during the day while dad worked.
[quote=“smiling_bandit, post:16, topic:564874”]
Have you considered, well, romancing her? I’m not joking. This is kinda part of my views on marriage. (Tristan, the rest of this is more general, so don’t think I’m just talking to or about you.)QUOTE]
Yes. I am a romantic at heart, and I do my best. Difficult with my work schedule, but I’m trying.
The fact that she hates flowers, candy, cards, surprises, and thinks that cuddeling and hugging is annoying is a bit of a buzz kill on that front.
I agree 100%, a marriage is about give and take. Took me a while to figure that out… I was all about the give, and went to far. HArd to stay married to someone who you don’t respect because they let you treat them like a door mat, apparently.
We shall see what happens.
I just can’t help but wonder what the kids are learning. That loveless marriages are OK? That they should never strive to make their lives full of love? That they should never leave a mediocre situation in the hopes of being in a better one? That they should settle? smiling bandit makes some wonderful points. When the first blush of love is gone, what then? Too many people expect to hear violins all their lives.
On the other hand, the other way is possibly teaching them to bail as soon as there’s even a small problem. That problems can’t be weathered and must be run from.
It would have to be decided totally on a case-by-case basis. Too many people give up on their marriage as soon as that first blush of love is gone. Or the kids come, and they’re too busy to maintain, and then after, they take each other for granted. But I don’t think people should feel obligated to stay in marriages, in the hopes it will someday get better, either.