For the Sake of the Children.

In My Humble Opinion
1

Is it ever a good idea for parents to stay together ‘for the sake of the children’? I am generally in favour of children having two co-habiting parents rather than just the one, to split the child-rearing workload if nothing else. But does it lead to more or less overall misery for parents to stick out a loveless marriage/partnership strictly for practical reasons?

My parents were indifferent to each other through all the childhood I can recall – no fighting, no fucking, no great affection shown. When they split up as my brothers and I entered teenage, it was a shock and upset me greatly, and has made me overly concerned with honesty (and to some degree paranoid of deceit) in my adult relationships.

I can’t see how going through the motions of a marriage – and subliminally teaching kids that marriage is the union of two dead cold fish – can be anything but a poor role model for children.

But maybe in the real world, income, shared parental labour and such, demand that parents stick it out ‘til the kids leave home and the parents can finally have happiness the second time around.

Any thoughts?

2

I think it depends on whether we’re talking *indifferent *or antagonistic.

I think indifferent couples should seriously consider sucking it up and staying together for the sake of the kids. I think this is not only useful for things like shared parenting, but it does teach the (perhaps regrettable, perhaps not) lesson that sometimes you put other people’s well-being before your delight, and that’s not only okay, it’s admirable. A person’s love for their children ought to be the motivating factor, not indifference to another adult. I would hope that these folks would still pursue their own interests and family interests and not become depressed blobs, but at the same time teach that romantic love is not the be all end all of existence, and you can live a full and happy life without it - especially temporarily.

Or, of course, agree to see other people romantically but stay close logistically. When I say “close,” I mean within a few doors of one another, if not in the same house - I’ve yet to see a “joint custody” that was really ideal unless the kids could walk from one house to another. With any sort of distance, kids get understandably resentful about being shuffled around and one parent becomes dominant in their lives.

If the couple is actively fighting, pitting kid(s) against each other, making people cringe and walk on eggshells when they’re in the room, then they need to cut that shit out. My first preference would be counseling/anger management. If that really doesn’t work, then yeah, split up and get on with life and parent the best you can. But it really ought to be a laster resort than it currently is in our culture, IMHO.

3

This, as with most child-rearing questions, has a variety of answers. It depends on too many variables. Who are the parents? Who are the kids? What is the financial situation? What are the reasons for splitting up (did you just grow apart or is there abuse)? You can ask any 100 children of divorce how it affected them, and you are likely to get 100 different answers. Each case has to be evaluated on its own merits.

4

[QUOTE=Kalhoun]
Each case has to be evaluated on its own merits.
[/QUOTE]
Of course; I just wanted some ultimately pointless, but occasionally enlightening speculation.

5

[QUOTE=Staggerlee]

But maybe in the real world, income, shared parental labour and such, demand that parents stick it out ‘til the kids leave home and the parents can finally have happiness the second time around.
[/QUOTE]

Unfortunately, practical considerations have to play a big role in this. Not only the day-to-day parenting bit, but also the practical consequences of splitting up - losing the family home, changing schools, drastically reduced income, etc…No self-respecting parent actually wants to upset their children or change their circumstances beyond all recognition.

However, I completely disagree that it’s possible to live a ‘full and happy’ life without romantic love for years on end (and if you assume that the children are able to cope with divorce by age 18, then you could easily be talking 10 years or more). If that was the case, there would be a lot fewer lonely and sad people in the world.

Staying with a partner you don’t love involves deceit. Seeing other people whilst married involves deceit. Getting divorced involves misery and pain for everybody (probably whatever age the children are). It sucks all ways.

6

I’ve come to believe that Razorette and I are probably very rare among dysfunctional couples, but we stayed together “for the kids” and it ended up being the best thing we ever did.

I will admit that my eye had wandered. Nothing else, mind you, just the eye. I was convinced that my sanity and happiness depended on getting out of my marriage and and being with someone who loved me for who and what I am rather than trying to turn me into some warped ideal of a husband. My wife’s take was that she was sick of the disrespect and humiliation of living with a man who didn’t give a shit about things she valued.

One afternoon after a particularly bitter blow-up that revolved around me being attracted to a younger woman (and the fact that the attraction appeared mutual) my wife and I sat in our van in the garage and talked for almost three hours about whether to stay together or split the sheets. She desperately wanted to keep our marriage together because she was deathly afraid of having to raise two teen-age boys by herself. We each have divorced siblings, and the kids always suffered from the breakups. My wife wanted us to see a therapist; I thought I at least owed her and the boys that, and I welcomed the educated opinon of a third party. After the first few sessions we realized that our love wasn’t really dead – yet – and that it was infinitely better for our sons if we stayed together. Providentially, the “other woman” decamped for greener pastures at about that time, and Razorette and I were able to immerse ourselves in rebuilding our marriage.

Bear in mind, I went into it “for the kids” and we were determined to do what was best for them. At first I felt like I was suppressing my identity, sacrificing the “real me” for my family. Eventually I came to realize how fatuous and self-absorbed that idea was. The reality was that I was actually freed from an infantile self-identity; I learned how to become an adult and discovered (after nearly 20 years of marriage) what a warm, fun-loving, affectionate and truly sensual woman my wife is. That was 15 years ago, and we have lived and loved happily ever since.

My personal opinion is that both partners have to be willing to realize that he or she is “broken” and needs to “fix” himself or herself; recognize the faults and be willing to correct them.

7

[QUOTE=CrowJane]
However, I completely disagree that it’s possible to live a ‘full and happy’ life without romantic love for years on end (and if you assume that the children are able to cope with divorce by age 18, then you could easily be talking 10 years or more).
[/QUOTE]

I disagree. There are plenty of priests, nuns, single people and willingly celibate who are complete, whole and happy people. Can everyone do it? No. But again, I think the *needs *of everyone in the family should be met before one person’s wants are considered. Children’s *needs are best met with two or more adults; adults *want *romantic relationships.

Because, I think, we’ve taught them that they need someone else to be happy and fulfilled. As Dr. Phil would say, how’s that working out for us?

I don’t agree with either of these. Honest and open communication about other relationships is possible with no deceit involved. Ask me how I know.

Now that I agree with, as the child of a divorced couple and as a former single mother.
*Best met. Yes, it’s possible to be a great single parent. But I’ve done both, and even just considering logistics, it’s *better *to be a joint parent (again, assuming indifference, not anger).

8

[QUOTE=WhyNot]
I disagree. There are plenty of priests, nuns, single people and willingly celibate who are complete, whole and happy people. Can everyone do it? No. But again, I think the *needs *of everyone in the family should be met before one person’s wants are considered. Children’s *needs are best met with two or more adults; adults *want *romantic relationships.
[/QUOTE]
Slightly disingenuous - if children’s needs can be imperfectly met by one adult, then two adults (together) caring for them are not a true need. And if an adult is bloody miserable without a romantic relationship, at what point does romance graduate from ‘want’ to ‘need’? I see the basic point - put the children first - but I think this therapy-speak can skew one’s perception of the arguments involved.

[QUOTE=WhyNot]
Because, I think, we’ve taught them that they need someone else to be happy and fulfilled. As Dr. Phil would say, how’s that working out for us?
[/QUOTE]
I certainly don’t need Dr Phil to be happy and fulfilled, of that I can be sure.

[QUOTE=WhyNot]
I don’t agree with either of these. Honest and open communication about other relationships is possible with no deceit involved. Ask me how I know.
[/QUOTE]
How do you know?

9

[QUOTE=WhyNot]
There are plenty of priests, nuns, single people and willingly celibate who are complete, whole and happy people.
[/Quote]

Yes, presumably because there is a strong element of positive choice involved in the decision.

I think it’s pretty hard to separate wants from needs when it comes to adult relationships. Clearly it’s not essential to be in a loving realtionship, but someone who feels that need may prove to be a lesser parent (less able to enjoy life, less tolerant etc) if the need is not met. I don’t see how it benefits the family to pretend that individual members should have no needs of their own. Childrens needs are not necessarily met by two adults if one or both adults would rather be somewhere else.

It might be possible to have honest and open communication about having other relationships, but I’m sure it’s not the norm. If it is, I’ll eat my proverbial hat.

10

I’ve posted before about my dislike of the concept.

This was from a recent thread by an adult who was utterly devastated by his parent’s recent separation.

11

My inclination is that it’s bunk. But a lot of that comes from my father’s own personal history. His parents thought that the idea of staying married for the children would be enough to keep them together. So they conceived him.

(Mind you, this was after a first marriage, then a divorce for infidelity, then a remarriage.)

They divorced again before he was born.

My father, when feeling bitter, can talk about knowing you were a failure before you’re even born.

12

[QUOTE=Staggerlee]
Slightly disingenuous - if children’s needs can be imperfectly met by one adult, then two adults (together) caring for them are not a true need.
[/QUOTE]

You can live on rice and beans, but you’ll get rickets and scurvy. Are vitamins a need or a want? I think the drawbacks to the standard divorce and subsequent parenting struggles are at least as damaging, on average, as crooked legs and loose teeth.

“Bloody miserable” tips the topic past “indifferent” for me. I know if I was “bloody miserable”, I’d fight with my spouse, put my children on eggshells and generally not be a positive person to live with. That would put the relationship in the second category - if things can’t be worked out to the point where I’m no longer bloody miserable, then perhaps it is best to end things.

Where is the dividing line between “bored and/or indifferent” and "bloody miserable? I don’t know. I don’t think I can define that for anyone else.

Because I’ve been in a (happy) open marriage for nearly 10 years now. No deception, no lies. I’m not saying it’s normal and customary, but it’s certainly possible. My response was to the assertion that having other relationships *always *involves deception.

I don’t care about “the norm”. The norm is hurting us. The OP asks about what *should *be, not what is most common.

There are certainly more people who have a “don’t ask, don’t tell” or “European marriage” policy. And, of course, even more who choose the deception and lies route. That last one saddens me, and is probably NOT best for the children or the adults involved.

However, I should add that I do agree with Risha. I think divorcing when the children are very young is preferable to sticking it out only to divorce when they’re older. The older a kid, the more problems I see. I’m not sure if there’s an upper limit - I haven’t observed adults with divorcing parents to have an informed opinion about that.

13

[QUOTE=Staggerlee]
Slightly disingenuous - if children’s needs can be imperfectly met by one adult, then two adults (together) caring for them are not a true need. And if an adult is bloody miserable without a romantic relationship, at what point does romance graduate from ‘want’ to ‘need’? I see the basic point - put the children first - but I think this therapy-speak can skew one’s perception of the arguments involved.
[/quote]
I agree with this. It’s not necessarily better to use the original parents. You will have imperfection whether you’re a single parent, a cohesive, traditional family, or a step-family. The needs of the children can be met using grandparents, SOs, close family friends or other relatives. They may be madly in love with each other, and truly care about the children, but one partner may not be good at interacting with kids. It happens in the best of families. We all make adjustments in an imperfect situation.

14

OK. I had a hard time deciding whether or not to pipe up or not, but here goes. I’m in it for the kids right now. At 9 and 10 years old they need us both. I would hate to see them raised only by their control freak mother.

The family home is very important to all of us, as we love where we live: good school, great neighbours, etc. Not to mention the financial quagmire that both of us would be in of we split up.

Indifference best describes it. My wife bitches that she feels like a maid, although I absolutely do my share of dishes, cooking, cleaning, not to mention my share of raising the kids. I get them on the bus in the morning including making lunches and snacks. When I get home from work late (because I go in late) supper has rarely even been considered and a lot of nights I take care of that, and the clean-up too.

It’s interesting to hear that I’m not alone being in this cloud of indifference. Sex is non-existent. There’s no fighting or arguing, or at least very little of it. We just seem to barely keep a lid on everything and get by day-to-day with each other.

She thinks I have a drinking problem. I don’t think I do, but then again I was born in Scotland where alcohol is considered a food group. I don’t drink every day, but maybe 4 or 5 nights a week I have something, ranging from 3 or 4, to 6 or 8 beers. Maybe it’s the one thing I do have some control over and therefore take advantage of it. I don’t know. I certainly don’t have control over finances, since my shop-a-holic wife can’t hang onto any kind of savings at all. Money, you see, is for spending. Then, when you get in trouble you refinance everything and start over again. :smack:

Maybe I should have started my own thread. But, I still think that both of us are doing the right thing by staying together for the kids. At least at this point in time.

15

Count me as another person that has stayed in for the sake of the children. When the kids were very young I didn’t think I could afford to leave. My husband and I together were barely making ends meet, and I didn’t see a way I could support myself and two kids by myself.

As the kids got older, I realized that they also needed a father. Yes, there are a lot of single parents out there that manage to do a fine job of raising their children, but by far most of the troubled kids I have seen come from divorced parents. I realized that my husband and I balanced each other fairly well and that taking the kids out of a two-parent home would harm them far more than it would help me.

Am I miserable? Not by any means. I came to the decision years ago to live for my kids and live for myself and not depend on my husband or anyone else for happiness. We are certainly still friends and we’ll probably stay married even after the kids are no longer dependent on us. I’m not yearning for some soul mate, and even if we had divorced way back when I first thought about it, I wouldn’t necessarily have a better mate now.

I look at my sister as an example - she got a divorce when her son was 12, and he had a terribly rocky childhood. He’s grown and stable now, but my sister is constantly complaining about how lonely she is. I know her divorce hurt her son, and I don’t know that it helped her at all.

I often wonder what would have happened if I had left my husband in the beginning, but I feel like my kids have had a much more stable childhood since I didn’t.

16

I don’t know that I’d exactly say that my wife and I stay together “for the kids,” but I think it is pretty clear that if we had not had kids we would have gone our separate ways long ago.

I fully agree that romantic love is one ingredient that goes towards a successful marriage/family. But it is only one of many ingredients, and even if it (or another ingredient) is lacking, the other aspects can be sufficient to make cohabitation preferable than the alternative - for all parties involved, including the kids.

17

[QUOTE=WhyNot]
If the couple is actively fighting, pitting kid(s) against each other, making people cringe and walk on eggshells when they’re in the room, then they need to cut that shit out. My first preference would be counseling/anger management. If that really doesn’t work, then yeah, split up and get on with life and parent the best you can. But it really ought to be a laster resort than it currently is in our culture, IMHO.
[/QUOTE]

Too true. When someone’s getting hurt because of the current living arrangements, the current living arrangements have to change. My in-laws got divorced just last year, and my MIL told me that while she had stayed as long as she had partly for the kids’ sake, she should’ve separated from him sooner. It took her a long time to realise just how adversely things were affecting her children.

18

I’ll make my point as simply as possible. My parents divorced when I was a kid. Now that I’m married with children, I’ll make every possible effort to keep my marriage together at least until the kids have moved out.

Luckily, my marriage is very good and I have no reason to think we won’t be happily married until one of us passes.

19

Another factor to consider is that people are not necessarily happier after divorcing (cite, cite) and divorce does not necessarily improve relations between parents and children, even custodial parents (cite). So if one divorces on the expectation that children are better off if their parents are happier, this is not always the case.

Regards,
Shodan

20

I recognize some of my own situation in yours Leaffan.

I feel that at the moment I am sacrificing my own happiness for the sake of my daughter (age 9).

There are of course other reasons that also affect the situation. I do like our home very much and we have a nice summer house. The day to day activities of cooking, cleaning, shopping picking up and leaving at school etc work pretty well.

But I get no love back at all. No sex, no hugs or kisses. I am still attracted to her and I find her just as attractive as I did when we met 12 years ago. I still look good and I am in shape, perhaps better shape than back then. But she claims to have no interest in me any longer in that regard.

We could survive financially if we separated but it still feels like such a waste to throw away all the things we’ve built up.

It is eating me inside though. It is frustrating to be rejected by someone you love. A divorce would hurt all three of us in the short run and perhaps in the long run as well. But the current situation is not good either. :frowning:

Thanks for starting the topic Staggerlee. I have been wanting to get it out for a while and share my woes and perhaps gain some wisdom from the smart people around here.