# Staying together for the children



## uhtred (Jun 22, 2016)

Sometimes people talk about staying together in an unhappy marriage for the children. 

I was a child with unhappy parents, and IMHO, its a very bad idea. My parents always said how much they "loved" each other, and so as a child I saw their miserable broken relationship as "love". It took me a very long time to unlearn that lesson.

Other thoughts? Should parents stay in an unhappy marriage for the benefit of their children?


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

uhtred said:


> Sometimes people talk about staying together in an unhappy marriage for the children.
> 
> I was a child with unhappy parents, and IMHO, its a very bad idea. My parents always said how much they "loved" each other, and so as a child I saw their miserable broken relationship as "love". It took me a very long time to unlearn that lesson.
> 
> Other thoughts? Should parents stay in an unhappy marriage for the benefit of their children?


I think when people say they're staying for the children, it's just a rationalization for lacking the motivation or the courage to leave. Or the motivation or courage to actually fix it.

You get to have it both ways, and to play it safe. Without having to do any work or take any risks.


----------



## arbitrator (Feb 13, 2012)

*Kids are resiliently smart and can usually see through this kind of thing!

Maybe it's OK for younger age children, but the older ones will definitely see through it! *


----------



## In Absentia (Aug 21, 2012)

As I said in the other thread, I think it depends on the degree of unhappiness... you can have a perfectly functioning relationship even if you are not 100% happy. In my opinion, the children would be better off like this. My parents were ok, although my mother was very cold and unemotional and my father violent. I still wanted them to be together, at least when I was young...


----------



## 3Xnocharm (Jun 22, 2012)

In Absentia said:


> As I said in the other thread, I think it depends on the degree of unhappiness... you can have a perfectly functioning relationship even if you are not 100% happy. In my opinion, the children would be better off like this. M*y parents were ok, although my mother was very cold and unemotional and my father violent. I still wanted them to be together, at least when I was young...*


Which explains your weakness as an adult...


----------



## RebuildingMe (Aug 18, 2019)

I agree with Marduk. This is said out of fear. It is just another excuse not to get divorced. Much like an affair, this is a way to rationalize. In this case, staying married when deep down you’d be happier if you left.


----------



## 3Xnocharm (Jun 22, 2012)

uhtred said:


> Sometimes people talk about staying together in an unhappy marriage for the children.
> 
> I was a child with unhappy parents, and IMHO, its a very bad idea. My parents always said how much they "loved" each other, and so as a child I saw their miserable broken relationship as "love". It took me a very long time to unlearn that lesson.
> 
> Other thoughts? Should parents stay in an unhappy marriage for the benefit of their children?


I was also a child with unhappy parents.. well, my dad anyway, he was verbally and emotionally abusive to my mom. I remember thinking, even back when I was really young, how much I wished they would get a divorce! I hated the way my mom was treated, and I hated having to be stuck in a home with my angry dad. She did finally file for divorce when I was 13, and after initial upset, I was so, so grateful. Granted, not all situations are openly abusive, but people make the HUGE mistake of thinking that they are shielding their children from the fact that their marriage is miserable. Kids are way smarter and more intuitive than they are given credit for. I think kids that get stuck in these homes eventually come to resent their parents for NOT breaking up and making them live with the dysfunction. Not to mention you are setting a crappy example of what marriage is that they are likely to grow up to repeat themselves. 

As the saying goes, its better to be FROM a broken home than to have to LIVE in one.


----------



## In Absentia (Aug 21, 2012)

3Xnocharm said:


> Which explains your weakness as an adult...


Absolutely... :smile2:


----------



## Tilted 1 (Jul 23, 2019)

No guts and fear for the parents, then their shiny dispositions rub off and start the game all over. What a loss for the kids.


----------



## Openminded (Feb 21, 2013)

Yes, children usually do want their parents together but they also want their parents happy. They know. I was always well aware my parents weren’t happy and I would have much preferred they had gotten a divorce. My mother claimed she stayed for me but I don’t believe that for a moment. She was too weak to leave and I was the one who paid the price by growing up in an unhappy house. I have no doubt that influenced my own marriage and not in a good way. So, no, I definitely don’t support the idea of staying in a dysfunctional marriage for the children.


----------



## uhtred (Jun 22, 2016)

There are also of course many forms of bad relationships. I think though that children are far better at picking things up, even if they don't understand them. 

They can also learn all sorts of unintended lessons. For instance I grew up having learned that it was "normal" for a married couple to have no physical contact at all, and to spend almost no time together. Mother cleans house and cooks. Father goes to work and brings home money. They speak politely to each other at meals. At other times they were rarely in the same room. A very efficient arrangement for operating household.


----------



## wilson (Nov 5, 2012)

It's only way a couple should stay together for the kids is if they can create an environment in which the kids are happy the family is together. If the kids say "We have a great family", then it might be worth it even if the parents are just putting on a good show. Kids growning up in a family environment where they feel safe, happy, and loved is worth it even if it's a little bit phony. But if the parents aren't able to create such an environment, then divorce will likely be much better overall. Growing up in an environment filled with fear and anger will create lots of problems that aren't worth staying together.


----------



## Numb26 (Sep 11, 2019)

In my situation I seriously thought about staying with my STBXW for the kids sake but decided that they would be better raised by a happy Father. As it turned out it was VERY important that I filed. The kids will be much better off now then they would have been if I stayed. Kids are smarter then we give them credit for and I didn't want them learning what a relationship SHOULD be by watching what was going on in my marriage.


----------



## Tilted 1 (Jul 23, 2019)

Openminded said:


> Yes, children usually do want their parents together but they also want their parents happy. They know. I was always well aware my parents weren’t happy and I would have much preferred they had gotten a divorce. My mother claimed she stayed for me but I don’t believe that for a moment. She was too weak to leave and I was the one who paid the price by growing up in an unhappy house. I have no doubt that influenced my own marriage and not in a good way. So, no, I definitely don’t support the idea of staying in a dysfunctional marriage for the children.


I had to like this twice , Openminded say it straight up. I didn't like this twice because his marriage suffered because of his honesty.

It is true because of if his parents, he has suffered because of it. I like to say l believe people say that it didn't affect them much, but little do they know that all of the crap goes with them and it unknowingly they live it out what they seen or because of it build up a boundary and what will be tolerated so no other person could ever live up to it. 

So then they themselves become miserable for the most part of their own lives.


----------



## Ed3n (Sep 25, 2018)

My parents often said that they stayed together for us kids. I got tired of hearing it, and at one point told them to stop blaming their children for their mistakes. 

When I left my ex husband, my parents were less than pleased. Several years later I met my now husband. After several years we decided to get married. The day before our wedding, my mom told me that she had hoped that my ex and I would get back together for our son. I was shocked, and offended. Up until that moment the only thing I had really said about my ex was that we had problems that we could not work past. I decided to tell my mom why I had divorced my ex. My ex had a severe aversion to monogamy, and had cheated on me throughout our 10+ year relationship. 

My ultra conservative mother was appalled. Up until then, she had sent my ex birthday cards and gifts, Christmas gifts, and had basically been treating him like the much loved soon in law (that I had left, and didn't 5 years fighting in a contentious divorce). Needless to say, he was no longer the perfect SIL that they had hoped I would reconsider divorcing. 

I cannot even begin to imagine staying with him for our son. I would die for my children, but there wasn't a chance that I would even consider getting back together with my ex. If Hades had frozen over, I'd have gone skiing. .

Staying together for the kids may work for some people, but generally speaking it forces the children to grow up trapped in their parents toxic marriage. Sadly, it will likely affect their children's concept of what a healthy relationship looks like.


----------



## BluesPower (Mar 27, 2018)

In Absentia said:


> As I said in the other thread, I think it depends on the degree of unhappiness... you can have a perfectly functioning relationship even if you are not 100% happy. In my opinion, the children would be better off like this. My parents were ok, although my mother was very cold and unemotional and my father violent. I still wanted them to be together, at least when I was young...


And you and others that think like this would be wrong. Your kids know that you are unhappy, even before you told them, they knew. 

You modeled what for them? Staying with a woman that does not love you because you are lying to yourself that you are doing it for the kids? 

See, same old rationalization about all this stuff. 

Staying for the kids is a lie we tell ourselves because we are scared to leave and face the unknown. 

Problem is, we don't see the damage we did to them until it is done. 

I did it, I am sure others did it... We think we are doing the right thing but we are not.

I am starting to think anything done out of some type of fear is a bad thing...


----------



## DownButNotOut (Apr 9, 2009)

uhtred said:


> There are also of course many forms of bad relationships. I think though that children are far better at picking things up, even if they don't understand them.
> 
> They can also learn all sorts of unintended lessons. For instance I grew up having learned that it was "normal" for a married couple to have no physical contact at all, and to spend almost no time together. Mother cleans house and cooks. Father goes to work and brings home money. They speak politely to each other at meals. At other times they were rarely in the same room. A very efficient arrangement for operating household.


That sounds like my parents. And my marriage. Kids definitely learn about relationships from their parents. I did. So 'for the kids', I think, can do quite a bit of damage.

Staying for the kids reminds me of another saying in unhappy marriages. "Too bad to stay, too good to leave". You are constantly in that middle ground of rationalizing staying because it isn't that bad. But always thinking about how life would be separate.


----------



## MJJEAN (Jun 26, 2015)

BluesPower said:


> Staying for the kids is a lie we tell ourselves because we are scared to leave and face the unknown.
> 
> Problem is, we don't see the damage we did to them until it is done.
> 
> I did it, I am sure others did it... We think we are doing the right thing but we are not.


I was very young when I married. Just a teen. I actually believed the "in case of pregnancy, get married and stay married for the kid" party line. No matter how bad it got, that would damage the kid less than a *gasp* broken home. I did some things out of desperation to keep myself sane that were not consistent with who I am as a person because I believed the hype.

One day when I was 24 and the kids were 6 and 1, IIRC I was folding something and it was sunny,and in a lightning bolt moment I realized the damage it was doing to stay. The girls are 21 and 26 now. My only saving grace is that I did leave and my DH and I modeled a much better relationship for them. It mitigated a lot of the damage according to my oldest, anyway.


----------



## cp3o (Jun 2, 2018)

uhtred said:


> Should parents stay in an unhappy marriage for the benefit of their children?


Probably usually not - though the degree of unhappiness, the vulnerability of the kids and balance of harm (as best assessed at the time) are all factors that should be considered.

I am not pretending that my situation was usual but the test of the validity of a concept is not whether it holds usually but whether it holds in the extremes. Just like a good bridge is one that survives the one-in-a-hundred-years 120mph wind rather than one that survives 360 days a year of normal winds.

I stayed. I stayed from just before my younger's fourth birthday until their sixteenth. 1981- 1993.

In hindsight it is clear that my XW met the DSM5 criteria for psychopathy. No remorse, no conscience, incapable of sexual and financial fidelity, driven by competition and hatred, unable to love-care-share, acting on the instant whim, occasionally violent and a pathological liar. Such women don't want children, they want to have what others have - once they have them one will be feted as "the golden child" and the other(s) denigrated as scapegoats for all ills. The "golden one" will be lied to, subjected to special praise-extra treats-public adulation until they are prised away from the rest of the family. A Psychopath's kids are mere tools for the glorification of the possessor of a semi-human mind resulting from inheriting some unusual DNA.

Without hindsight I learnt enough in the few days after DDay to realise that my then W was seriously disturbed and likely to behave, if left to do so, in ways that would put (again) my kids at risk of severe physical and psychological damage. It was also obvious that she craved the respectability of a stable marriage with husband and kids as the ground which enabled her to hold down a respected position in society. It was good cover but also a constraint - lose it and there would have been no check to her (further but then limited) acceptance of semi-public humiliation and degradation. Due to her job, and mine, and the courts' desire that youngsters should live with their mother (what I knew was largely undocumented and deniable) I would have been absent from their lives for probably 12 out of every 14 days.

And, as far as she was concerned, it wasn't an unhappy marriage. Never once in all our twenty-five years did she suggest we split, or even separate temporarily. I don't suppose she thought it perfect - but she never expressed any more than the most minor and temporary dissatisfaction.

I regarded it as unhappy, but necessary. I had my endgame in place and a date. I fashioned a successful career with a major multinational whilst maintaining sufficient control that we appeared a normal couple to most of those we interacted with (and some of those were, once one got to know them, distinctly ab-normal). My W continued to be unfaithful and to lie incompetently but her behaviour was discreet and, in her work environment, hardly out-of-the-ordinary. I had an alternative, and very attractive, source of emotional and cuddles+ friendship. 

The effect on my kids - 

the younger, the golden child, became alienated from me, crashed and burned but has recovered, so I understand, to living a decent life with a decent job and a decent partner. 

the elder tells me that not only did he never suspect (until I made my move) that there was any tension in the marriage, but it was never intimated to him by those who would have used such knowledge to provoke him to teenage over-reaction (one of which would have been his sibling). He now has a successful small business and a lovely girlfriend/partner.

Was I right? I'll never know - but my conscience is clear, I sleep soundly and readily and the fact that both kids have reached 40 able to have a decent life and good partners is, I suspect, better than that which would have happened had I left. 

So - I agree that it is probably better for the kids, in most cases, that their parents split - but it isn't always as black-and-white as some posters appear to imply.


----------



## aquarius1 (May 10, 2019)

DH and I stayed together for the kids. We've had some real rodeo ride ups and downs. Big mistakes on both sides. Troublesome or no communication for a LONG time, angry outbursts on my part, silence on his part.

Mental health issues and dry sexual spells that would make the Mojave Desert look like an oasis. Job losses, deaths, medical issues etc etc.

Now, here we are, 28 married years later. Kids are young adults, not quite launched. Our sex life is AWESOME. Our communication still needs work but now we agree to disagree or come back to it when both parties are ready.

Goodness, so much time and money wasted on MC.

Am I glad we stayed together for the kids? YUP. It's what got us over the other side of that bleeping mountain. Whatever time we have left we are gonna ride this to the finish line. FINALLY figuring things out.


----------



## In Absentia (Aug 21, 2012)

BluesPower said:


> And you and others that think like this would be wrong. Your kids know that you are unhappy, even before you told them, they knew.


we were divorcing 15 years ago, but then she decided to compromise, so I stayed, only to find out it was all a joke... I am aware of the damage. The problem was that we didn't want want to break the family up, so we carried on... and that was a mistake. It's too late now. I think they had a decent childhood, when we were still getting on... the last 15 years, I don't know... I just hope we haven't inflicted too much damage onto them...


----------



## In Absentia (Aug 21, 2012)

aquarius1 said:


> Am I glad we stayed together for the kids?



I'm not glad, but kids also have to learn that a marriage has its difficulties... as I said, we did our best, but I don't think it was enough. Still waiting for my wife sexual awakening, though... :laugh:


----------



## aquarius1 (May 10, 2019)

In Absentia said:


> I'm not glad, but kids also have to learn that a marriage has its difficulties... as I said, we did our best, but I don't think it was enough. Still waiting for my wife sexual awakening, though... :laugh:


Agreed that kids need to see that marriage can be really rough sometimes. 

Honestly IA, i think that we stayed for all the reasons we shouldn't. Fear, loneliness, not wanting to move forward. As Marduk says, we give ourselves excuses to stay and time passes. We faced the same sexual impasse that many face.

Our change was brought on by my life threatening illness last year. 
The circumstances altered me and i sought new answers to old questions. I wanted whatever time i had left to have meaning.
I read, voraciously. Watched videos down whatever rabbit hole they took me, literally seeking answers.
Not everyone has that moment (thankfully)


----------



## In Absentia (Aug 21, 2012)

aquarius1 said:


> Not everyone has that moment (thankfully)


yes, I understand... I've given up, personally, because I have to move on. It's not healthy where I am.


----------



## aquarius1 (May 10, 2019)

In Absentia said:


> yes, I understand... I've given up, personally, because I have to move on. It's not healthy where I am.


And if i may say. When you are faced with your end of days you will regret not living a fuller life sooner.


----------



## Tilted 1 (Jul 23, 2019)

So as some have indicated that they stayed for there own selfish reasons or another, fear, unknown, loneliness, ect, ect, ECT. 

Then they lay down and submit themselves to whatever doesn't rock the boat. And still because the kids grew are successful, or giving the appearance of. Thinking it's going to be ok is smack. 

But having kids mature and make something of themselves is not a indicator of not being affected, and just hoping for the best is a gamble. 

And one gets to a point of reflection and thinks it wasn't that bad because at least they had one sane parent, isn't meeting reality in many fronts because they justify it to themselves the kids may have it worse without them so this is call settling and nonconfrontional , Is not a grey area but, it should have been a rather clear decision to leave but didn't.


----------



## In Absentia (Aug 21, 2012)

aquarius1 said:


> And if i may say. When you are faced with your end of days you will regret not living a fuller life sooner.


Possibly... :smile2:


----------



## cp3o (Jun 2, 2018)

Tilted 1 said:


> So as some have indicated that they stayed for there own selfish reasons or another, fear, unknown, loneliness, ect, ect, ECT.


 You don't seem to recognise a more honourable, though possibly still selfish, reason - morality. 

Those of us who, for our own selfish (and ultimately they are all either selfish or rape) reasons bring kids into this world owe them a moral duty of care. They, like us, owe parents nothing - the responsibility is on those who either choose to be the cause or cannot be bothered not to be the cause rather than those who are unable to refuse to be the result.


> Then they lay down and submit themselves to whatever doesn't rock the boat. And still because the kids grew are successful, or giving the appearance of. Thinking it's going to be ok is smack.


 Irrational extrapolation? Who says it's going to be OK? - It is almost certainly not OK - but then the alternative is not OK either. The judgement of reason is not whether something is "OK" - but is it less "not OK". And the suggestion that the betrayed parent must lay down and submit themselves is simplistic, counter-intuitive and, at least sometimes, just plain wrong.


> But having kids mature and make something of themselves is not a indicator of not being affected, and just hoping for the best is a gamble.


 Divorce is not "just hoping for the best"? Sometimes - and only sometimes, I suspect that divorce is the easier way for the parents - but no-one knows the future - no-one knows what the outcome of major changes in life-style will be and no-one has the right to over-simply a complex situation to fit a pre-ordained preference. 

Those who take their responsibilities seriously will make a conscious effort to do what they believe to be the best option - they will not pretend an area that must nearly always be grey is black-and-white - that smacks to me of intellectual laziness.


> And one gets to a point of reflection and thinks it wasn't that bad because at least they had one sane parent, isn't meeting reality in many fronts because they justify it to themselves the kids may have it worse without them so this is call settling and nonconfrontional , Is not a grey area but, it should have been a rather clear decision to leave but didn't.


 ISTM that you are frightened by the idea that staying may, sometimes, be right. 

I speak only for my situation. It does not fit your description - never did. 

Was I non-confrontational when I pulled my (5'6" 180?lbs) XW off an eight year old she was roundarming to head, shoulders and chest because "HE SAID NO - HE SAID NO" and promised her a substantial stay in hospital if she ever repeated her behaviour? (I have no grounds for believing she did repeat it).

You think I should have left my kids with a violent mother who associated with aggressive alcoholics (she claimed her best friend's husband raped her, and also humiliated her in a bar before his mates - she continued to pursue him once he had "brutally" dumped her) - the same mother who abandoned, beyond sight or hearing, her 3 and 4 year olds where abduction and worse were a real possibility for ten minutes on her back with her paramour - and then admitted to doing so without a trace of remorse, regret or concern. 

You think I went along with the offer of sex by her (subsequent) "best friend" because it was planned and approved with my X and not doing so would have been "nonconfrontational" (I didn't) - or I was "settling" when the other six people at the dinner party thrown by one of her colleagues were firmly discouraged from thinking that I was there to sample charms of the female diners after coffee and mints? I didn't hit anyone, at six-two, fit and sober (I was driving) I didn't need to hit anyone - does that make me a wuss?

You may have some justification for your attitude based on your own experience - if so, your experience is not mine.


----------



## CatholicDad (Oct 30, 2017)

I’m another vote for stay together for the kids. My wife and I were both young, immature hot heads and despite some vicious arguments, threatening divorce on multiple occasions, etc... I think we just continued trying (I’ve always loved her)... of course, we share the same values, no drug/alcohol problems, no cheating... we also have probably two to three times the number of children most people have and more hardships in terms of health scares, stress, etc... in sum though- now we’re really enjoying life, 26 years together, our hot heads have cooled via wisdom or age and we get along better than ever... really enjoying life now that we’ve matured and survived decades of babies, sleepless nights, health issues etc. Think our love life is hotter than ever.... so glad I didn’t do something stupid like go after other women or bury myself in porn or other destructive habits!


----------



## Tilted 1 (Jul 23, 2019)

cp3o said:


> You don't seem to recognise a more honourable, though possibly still selfish, reason - morality.
> 
> Those of us who, for our own selfish (and ultimately they are all either selfish or rape) reasons bring kids into this world owe them a moral duty of care. They, like us, owe parents nothing - the responsibility is on those who either choose to be the cause or cannot be bothered not to be the cause rather than those who are unable to refuse to be the result. Irrational extrapolation? Who says it's going to be OK? - It is almost certainly not OK - but then the alternative is not OK either. The judgement of reason is not whether something is "OK" - but is it less "not OK". And the suggestion that the betrayed parent must lay down and submit themselves is simplistic, counter-intuitive and, at least sometimes, just plain wrong. Divorce is not "just hoping for the best"? Sometimes - and only sometimes, I suspect that divorce is the easier way for the parents - but no-one knows the future - no-one knows what the outcome of major changes in life-style will be and no-one has the right to over-simply a complex situation to fit a pre-ordained preference.
> 
> ...


Morality, is exactly what l am speaking of, and yes of course is a parent's duty to care for the child/children. I am not suggesting the betrayed parent lay down and not saying divorce is easier but sometimes the proper thing to do because it may remove the bad element. But saying divorce is over simplifying is incorrect. But may well be the correct thing to do when the two stay together tearing down and other things that warp the children's mind and emotions.

Taking responsibility hopefully is done by both parents, and doing the only thing left to do is to split.And in no way do l think staying is best, but rather incorrect by staying. Using morality should make the right decision that is indeed black and white, or right and wrong and not remain together and married to continue to subject the children to mental/physical abuse.

I didn't not read any of the following..

If l understanding you correctly when you pulled your XW off of your 8yr old child was to protecting the child, or was because you didn't want the 8 yr old to engage in return violence.

You assume, l said to leave the kids with a violent drunk of a mother. I did not. But did you not say your remained the the marriage? In your post l did not see, about any rape nor pursuing of another man or of the laying down with a man while ignoring the children.

I also did not read about your offer of sex by her friend, or sampling of charm's after the dinner. And of you placing words that point to you being a wuss. 

You have misunderstood.

I am saying the exact opposite to remain together because one partner of the marriage thinks they should remain for the sake of the children as this post is asking.

And the justification of which you speak of is based on experience that l believe, that parents should not remain together for the sake of the kids. And it is correct that husband's and wife's to choose to remain in the marriage will never really know just how much damage was done to the kids. 

But of the gift we all receive our mind, as we come of age and living life doing their personal best can make lemonade out of lemons, but somewhere in the back of their mind remember the suffering and horrors of their childhood. And are subject to repeat what they learn as children, because of it being deeply instilled and that can not be removed. Or remember so vividly as to not repeat what they lived.

And so those wounded of this type of abuse, may vow and attempt never to repeat what they lived, but as we see it becomes the motorskills that is instantaneous and automatic. 

And you are fortunate that because you stayed, thus far your children have proven to be well balanced and successful.

Others I seen and have come to know we're not that successful in their personal lives or marriages. And some know and understand that they bring with them traits of their past. But somehow are not able to be released from it grasp.


----------



## Adelais (Oct 23, 2013)

cp3o said:


> You don't seem to recognise a more honourable, though possibly still selfish, reason - morality.
> 
> .....(cut)....You think I went along with the offer of sex by her (subsequent) "best friend" because it was planned and approved with my X and not doing so would have been "nonconfrontational" (I didn't) - or I was "settling" when the other six people at the dinner party thrown by one of her colleagues were firmly discouraged from thinking that I was there to sample charms of the female diners after coffee and mints? I didn't hit anyone, at six-two, fit and sober (I was driving) I didn't need to hit anyone - does that make me a wuss?





cp3o said:


> I had an alternative, and very attractive, source of emotional and cuddles+ friendship.


I am not trying to threadjack, but these two statements of yours seem to be contradictory. Or am I misunderstanding something?

I understand your staying because you feared for your children's physical and emotional safety if your wife had been allowed to be alone with them in the case of a divorce. 

Your use of the word "morality" seems incongruent when you had your "alternative, and very attractive, source of emotional and cuddles +friendship" who was obviously not your wife. Add to that that you have done this for years.

In a case such as yours, you needed to protect your children and be consistent in your morality and not have an ongoing affair. You would have suffered greatly, yes, but it would have been worth it, for morality's sake.


----------



## cp3o (Jun 2, 2018)

Adelais said:


> I am not trying to threadjack, but these two statements of yours seem to be contradictory. Or am I misunderstanding something?
> 
> I understand your staying because you feared for your children's physical and emotional safety if your wife had been allowed to be alone with them in the case of a divorce.
> 
> ...


We differ, I suspect, about when a marriage ends.

I knew the lady for eight+ years before we even kissed. Her youngest child was in a pram when we first met, my first arrived four years later with number two eighteen months after their sibling.

We knew the first minute of the first meeting in 1972 (a business meeting at their home/office headquarters) that we were mutually attracted, and did nothing for eight years to admit that knowledge. 

I called to see them (she and her husband were business partners and the business was my customer) just before Xmas 1980 and met her husband leaving - he asked me to go in and comfort his wife - he told me that she had found out two days prior that he had been having an affair with her best friend (not a good bestie - she'd even tried it on with me!) for six months. 

For two hours we sat on her sofa and I held her whilst she sobbed. 

Nothing more. 

Six months later she returned the favour. 

Some time after that we became what she called "kissing friends" though, in truth, we often did quite a bit more than kiss and occasionally, vary rarely, a lot more. We decided, due to our respective domestic situations not to embark on a normal full-blown physical affair (and no - neither of us ever used the "L" word) because we would have forfeit the friendship when caught. What today might be called FWB? - but the more important element was the friendship. We kept company in unconnected (other than by us) social groups, lived forty miles apart, had entirely different backgrounds and could unburden ourselves without fear of exposure.

As far as we were concerned our marriages were dead. The piece of paper still existed and we both behaved as though married when in public with our spouse. We both knew that the divorce was merely on hold until a less bad time and, for different reasons, that meant when our kids were independent enough. 

We did not create the marriage breakdowns - we were fortunate to be able to find a supportive relationship that made managing very painful situations more tolerable. It is reasonable to assume, though it is but an assumption, that the relationship enabled both of us to support our kids better than had we not had each other as trusted confidantes.

Additionally, and FWIW.

My XW wrote a partial timeline/admission immediately after DDay. It is in her distinctive handwriting and dated July 1981. I still have it in case my kids ever ask to see it. The contents were hers, that quoted below was unexpected. 

You may, or may not, consider the following extract relevant - since my friendship+ was not, IMO, a RA I don't.

_"I also understand that you may have an affair soon or at some time in the future & there can be no condemnation from me, since I am guilty. 
No doubt I shall be upset but I shall try to be understanding. I should like to know when it is over or if it lasts a long time >1 yr then I would like to know that it is going on."_


----------



## cp3o (Jun 2, 2018)

Tilted 1 said:


> Morality, is exactly what l am speaking of, and yes of course is a parent's duty to care for the child/children. I am not suggesting the betrayed parent lay down and not saying divorce is easier but sometimes the proper thing to do because it may remove the bad element. But saying divorce is over simplifying is incorrect. But may well be the correct thing to do when the two stay together tearing down and other things that warp the children's mind and emotions.
> 
> Taking responsibility hopefully is done by both parents, and doing the only thing left to do is to split.And in no way do l think staying is best, but rather incorrect by staying. Using morality should make the right decision that is indeed black and white, or right and wrong and not remain together and married to continue to subject the children to mental/physical abuse.


 I found some of this difficult to follow - my position is that, sometimes, the children's mental/physical abuse is likely to be greater if the betrayed spouse divorces the betrayer. I believe that would have been the case in my specific circumstances. 

I entirely disagree with any view that morality always is, or always leads to decisions which are, black and white. In my experience the real world requires an appreciation of tone in order to minimise harm


> .
> 
> I didn't not read any of the following..
> 
> If l understanding you correctly when you pulled your XW off of your 8yr old child was to protecting the child, or was because you didn't want the 8 yr old to engage in return violence.


 The child was in no position to return violence - my action was entirely protective of the child - both immediately and, hopefully, going forward.


> You assume, l said to leave the kids with a violent drunk of a mother. I did not. But did you not say your remained the the marriage? In your post l did not see, about any rape nor pursuing of another man or of the laying down with a man while ignoring the children.


 In fairness my XW was not a drunk - her paramour and some of his associates were. 
The additional details were not considered necessary initially - I provided them because I felt that they added a needed level of detail that supported my contention.


> I also did not read about your offer of sex by her friend, or sampling of charm's after the dinner. And of you placing words that point to you being a wuss.
> 
> You have misunderstood.


 What you wrote could, IMO, be read as being dismissive of anyone who did not promptly divorce - whatever their situation. I apologise if that was an unreasonable interpretation of your words.


> I am saying the exact opposite to remain together because one partner of the marriage thinks they should remain for the sake of the children as this post is asking.
> 
> And the justification of which you speak of is based on experience that l believe, that parents should not remain together for the sake of the kids. And it is correct that husband's and wife's to choose to remain in the marriage will never really know just how much damage was done to the kids.
> 
> ...


 I cannot respond to this as it stands - could you clarify it please?


> And you are fortunate that because you stayed, thus far your children have proven to be well balanced and successful.
> 
> Others I seen and have come to know we're not that successful in their personal lives or marriages. And some know and understand that they bring with them traits of their past. But somehow are not able to be released from it grasp.


 I have no doubt that I and my kids are the worse for having spent many years under the same roof as their mother. Removing them was not an option so, IMO, by staying I probably, may be 80/20?, minimised the damage they would have incurred had I divorced immediately.


----------



## Adelais (Oct 23, 2013)

cp3o said:


> We differ, I suspect, about when a marriage ends.
> 
> I knew the lady for eight+ years before we even kissed. Her youngest child was in a pram when we first met, my first arrived four years later with number two eighteen months after their sibling.
> 
> ...


Regarding your minimizing of your affair in the first part of your post: blah, blah, blah. Pure cheater's rewriting of history and justification.

Regarding your wife's quote: did you tell her about the affair as she requested since it lasted more than 1 year? She probably would have wanted to know so she knew where she stood and could plan her own life. i.e. divorce you for a for having a long term affair.

You seem very cavalier about the whole thing.


----------



## kettle (Oct 28, 2016)

I was speaking with my cousin about this. He is staying with his wife for the kids after she cheated on him with one of our cousins. His brother is doing the same thing as he and his wife live in a location that she loves and he finds miserable. I think it can be the right idea depending on how the couple get along. If the couple is at each other's throats that is a terrible situation for the children. If the parents can on well as friends maybe staying together for the children might be okay. All 3 of us are staying with out wives. I could also see all 3 of our marriages ending after the children leave home.


Generally, I would say staying together for the sake of the kids is wrong. However, half of my brain says its the right thing to because my story is different from everybody elses. Of course my story is not different. There is a very good chance my wife cheated on me and we have nothing in common. In saying that we can along pretty well, our children are happy and confident. They are the only thing we have in common. So I will stay until they leave home. After that I think our marriage will likely dissolve.


----------



## Tilted 1 (Jul 23, 2019)

cp3o said:


> I found some of this difficult to follow - my position is that, sometimes, the children's mental/physical abuse is likely to be greater if the betrayed spouse divorces the betrayer. I believe that would have been the case in my specific circumstances.
> 
> I entirely disagree with any view that morality always is, or always leads to decisions which are, black and white. In my experience the real world requires an appreciation of tone in order to minimise harm The child was in no position to return violence - my action was entirely protective of the child - both immediately and, hopefully, going forward. In fairness my XW was not a drunk - her paramour and some of his associates were.
> The additional details were not considered necessary initially - I provided them because I felt that they added a needed level of detail that supported my contention. What you wrote could, IMO, be read as being dismissive of anyone who did not promptly divorce - whatever their situation.
> ...



Apologie accepted, And in your words " no doubt my kids are far worse for having spent many years under the same roof as their mother" . Is exactly the reason why, this is linear . And is the option you chose. There are options but this is yours, and you stated you'll not know if it would have been a different outcome. And as complex as yours situation unfolded merits different thoughts for you. And so be it.

Take what you need from these fourms, leave opinion, and settle for your decisions. But your regret is evident of your decisions.


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11 (Feb 14, 2018)

Honestly, both options are ****ty. Your parents divorcing or living in a miserable marriage. 

It's not like divorce is pleasant for children. Then you have moving between houses, understanding protocol of the different households. How to interact with this new stepparent that you are suddenly living with. 

And many couples are fairly good at pretending or sweeping that affair 10 years ago under the rug. But all marriages are flawed to some degree even if you don't crater it with an affair, substance abuse, physical/emotional abuse and all other vices. It could be so simple as a feeling or emotion or some superficial reason that can lead people to abandon a marriage/family meant to be a lifelong comittment. That is sad.

Not defending staying together, but I don't see either case any more honorable than the other. It's not like there a tons of kids from divorced parents that wish their moms and dads could have stayed together.


----------



## Tilted 1 (Jul 23, 2019)

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> Honestly, both options are ****ty. Your parents divorcing or living in a miserable marriage.
> .


Yes both are.


----------



## tropicalbeachiwish (Jun 1, 2016)

My parents divorced when I was a teenager. They were trying to hold out until I graduated from high school. I knew how miserable they were and that unhappiness really did bleed into the dynamics of the household. Very unhealthy. Kids aren't stupid. They pick up on so much more than what's discussed out in the open. 

So, I say no to staying in the marriage for the sake of the children. You're not doing any favors to the kids. I also think that parents should be extremely discreet in dating once divorced. Very discreet, especially with small children.


----------



## cp3o (Jun 2, 2018)

Adelais said:


> Regarding your minimizing of your affair in the first part of your post: blah, blah, blah. Pure cheater's rewriting of history and justification.


 You are, indirectly, accusing me of lying. 

Based on what?

You were there?

Your analysis is, ISTM, not only fallacious - it is also arrogant and offensive.

You may wish to reconsider and apologise.


> Regarding your wife's quote: did you tell her about the affair as she requested since it lasted more than 1 year? She probably would have wanted to know so she knew where she stood and could plan her own life. i.e. divorce you for a for having a long term affair.


1 - to have an affair one needs to be in a marriage*.

2 - People who are interested in the truth ask questions before deciding on what that truth might be. Your "probably" is so far wide of the mark that it is risible.

My XW had no intention of divorcing me - I provided the stability and the normality which allowed her to function in our community. She wanted to have her cake and eat it. Without me - no cake. No position in local society as the civic leader with a lovely home, successful husband and two bright kids.

She was also desperate that I should have a sexual relationship - she was so incapable of empathy that she, as she said, wanted me to have an "affair" as that would "make us even". She never managed to explain to me how I could destroy something that she had already annihilated.

She knew about my friendship - I suspect she thought it platonic, but she never asked. As far as her request was concerned - my relationship was nothing to do with her, she had been deceitful in her partial confession (I knew more than she thought I did) and I saw no reason to be truthful with her whilst she continued to be deceitful toward me.

FWIW - My XW spent considerable time and effort trying to get me to have a sexual relationship - including setting me up with her (married) best friend and taking me to an eight person dinner party which, I realised during the dessert, was intended to become sexual once the coffee and chocolates had been consumed.


> You seem very cavalier about the whole thing.


I, with some scars, survived her (as did the kids). Most who spend 25 years with a DSM5-defined psychopath are left far worse than I. If I have a cavalier attitude it is because it works for me.

*Your understanding of marriage and mine are different.
My then W willingly, repeatedly and with multiple men broke a, perhaps the, major agreement within our marriage contract.
When I discovered her actions over nearly ten years the marriage ceased to exist.
She knew that our relationship was irrevocably changed and that, but for the kids, divorce would have happened in 1981.


----------



## cp3o (Jun 2, 2018)

tropicalbeachiwish said:


> My parents divorced when I was a teenager. They were trying to hold out until I graduated from high school. I knew how miserable they were and that unhappiness really did bleed into the dynamics of the household. Very unhealthy. Kids aren't stupid. They pick up on so much more than what's discussed out in the open.
> 
> So, I say no to staying in the marriage for the sake of the children. You're not doing any favors to the kids. I also think that parents should be extremely discreet in dating once divorced. Very discreet, especially with small children.


There is no one answer that fits all cases.

My kids (with unusually high IQs) say that they were unaware of tensions within the marriage until the final straw which caused me to act a couple of years prior to the planned date. That said - they were only 4 and 5 when she destroyed the marriage, the next 12 years we cohabited/coparented in a civilised, and mainly peaceful, manner whilst pursuing our separate careers and social lives.


----------



## Adelais (Oct 23, 2013)

cp3o said:


> You are, indirectly, accusing me of lying.
> 
> Based on what?
> 
> ...


You need to educate yourself on what constitutes an affair, and how people having them rewrite history to justify their behavior in order to not have a guilty conscience. There are a plethora of books written about it, probably TED talks and YouTube videos as well.

If the truth hurts, then the truth is offensive, not me.

You are the one who comes off as arrogant, when all the data shows that cheaters lie and justify....but your situation was "special." That is what all cheaters believe. Educate yourself about "cheater's speak." It is a real term, I did not make it up.

If your wife was truly a DSM5-defined psychopath, then you could have divorced her and gotten major custody, if not full custody, and your children would have been protected from her. In fact, had you called the police on her when she was abusing the children, you would have established a pattern, with legal evidenced and she would have lost the right to have them.

You just didn't want to get divorced, you wanted your cake and eat it too.

Justifying an affair is just that: justifying an affair. All your explanations and indignation won't change the fact that your "valid reasons" are merely justifications.

Regarding our definitions of marriage being different: no, they are the same, because you did not marry the other woman while remaining married to your wife. Bigamy is illegal. We have the same definition of marriage. An emotional union may have been absent between your wife and you, but you were legally married and that is why what you did is called adultery.

Back to the thread topic. There may be reasons and conditions when staying together for the children is best. However there are no moral reasons for adultery if one decides to stay in a bad marriage for the children.

If the marriage is so bad that you are dying of not having an emotional or sexual connection then get divorced before you find someone to fill those needs.


----------



## MZMEE (Apr 17, 2018)

Never ever ever ever ever ever stay married for the kids. Kids are not stupid. Most parents think they are fooling the kids when most of the time the kids just want the parents to be happy. Some kids wish their parents would divorce just to have peace in the house.

The key is not to stay in an unhappy marriage, the key is to create a healthy co-parenting situation when you divorce. This is where most parents make the bigger mistake. Me and my youngest daughter's father had a great co-parenting situation. We left our marital bitterness aside and focused on being a healthy mother and father too our daughter. I never had to ask the courts to MAKE him pay child support. He just faithfully payed every month from 9-18 years old without missing one payment or being late and if I needed anything extra for her, he'd do it. We split the time too. She started every other week but with school it got too much so she did weekends. Eventually she'd spend whole summers with him. The events we had to go to together, we did. He drove his car I drove mine and we acted cordially.

Divorce is never ideal for anyone involved but it's better than being fake in a toxic marriage just to appear like everything is ok. Just to be in the same house. That is not the example you want to show your kids. They will either see a healthy marriage or see healthy co-parenting. 

Thats my two cents.


----------



## cp3o (Jun 2, 2018)

Adelais said:


> You need to educate yourself on what constitutes an affair, and how people having them rewrite history to justify their behavior in order to not have a guilty conscience. There are a plethora of books written about it, probably TED talks and YouTube videos as well.
> 
> If the truth hurts, then the truth is offensive, not me.
> 
> ...


I started to reply line-by-line, but was merely repeating myself.

You regard marriage as something that exists because of a piece of paper - nothing more and nothing less. You are entitled to your opinion. What you are not, IMO, entitled to do is pretend that you know what happened thirty/forty years ago better than someone who was there. 

Your line about the truth being offensive is ridiculous - you have no idea as to what is true - merely what you wish to be true - and in that you are, IMO, both offensive and wrong.

You didn't make up "cheater's speak" but that doesn't entitle you to misapply it. In your world no-one you define as a cheat can be truthful - that is not what "all the data" says. And, by the way, just because someone creates a TED talk, a book, or a YouTube video doesn't mean that they are right. If it did there would only need to be one.

My wife could not have been a DSM5 anything in the 1980s - it was published in 2013. The rest of your assertion is equally out of touch with reality. I could explain why - but you would refuse to accept the truth - yet again.

I suspect you genuinely believe that you are more expert than I about me, my marriage, my wife, my kids and the environment we were in. You have a simple conviction about this subject - a subject that is more complex than it appears that you can, or are prepared to, accept.

You are entitled to express doubt, to ask questions and to explain your expectations. You are not entitled to replace reality with a mix of unsupported aggressive assertions and generalisations which display your ignorance of the specifics.

You may have as many last words as you wish - I understand that reason and evidence will never remove the bias and preconceptions gained in the absence of both. 

I'm out.


----------



## cp3o (Jun 2, 2018)

MZMEE said:


> Never ever ever ever ever ever stay married for the kids. Kids are not stupid. Most parents think they are fooling the kids when most of the time the kids just want the parents to be happy. Some kids wish their parents would divorce just to have peace in the house.
> 
> The key is not to stay in an unhappy marriage, the key is to create a healthy co-parenting situation when you divorce. This is where most parents make the bigger mistake. Me and my youngest daughter's father had a great co-parenting situation. We left our marital bitterness aside and focused on being a healthy mother and father too our daughter. I never had to ask the courts to MAKE him pay child support. He just faithfully payed every month from 9-18 years old without missing one payment or being late and if I needed anything extra for her, he'd do it. We split the time too. She started every other week but with school it got too much so she did weekends. Eventually she'd spend whole summers with him. The events we had to go to together, we did. He drove his car I drove mine and we acted cordially.
> 
> ...


And probably often right - but not always.

_"the key is to create a healthy co-parenting situation when you divorce."_ Ideally - yes - sometimes in practice this is not possible. 

I defy anyone to explain to me, or to the many others in similar situations, how I could "create a healthy co-parenting situation" with a person with an inherited DNA variation that precluded truthfulness, remorse, fidelity (sexual and financial), conscience, empathy etc. etc.. 

She was what she was - she didn't choose to be violent, to live for the latest whim, to separate her children into one golden one and the dross. She had no choice. Any more than I could fly unaided - we neither had the requisite equipment. There is a hope of treatment by genetic modification, it's reckoned to be at least two generations away. 

The best estimates of such people's presence in the general population range from 1 in 150 to 1 in 75. Think about that - a single condition, and there are others, that is present in one marriage in what - 50? How many marriages are there in your community?

Unfortunately, in that minority of marriages "They will either see a healthy marriage or see healthy co-parenting." - does not apply. Neither option is possible. Then protecting the innocent is, I believe, our primary moral duty - but remember "the innocent" is not only the kids - the BS is also innocent and may consider that they can better protect their kids if they first protect themselves - the aircraft oxygen mask situation.


----------



## In Absentia (Aug 21, 2012)

cp3o said:


> _"the key is to create a healthy co-parenting situation when you divorce."_ Ideally - yes - sometimes in practice this is not possible.


Some call it conscious uncoupling... it is possible.


----------



## cp3o (Jun 2, 2018)

In Absentia said:


> Some call it conscious uncoupling... it is possible.


"a proven process for lovingly completing a relationship that will leave you feeling whole and healed and at peace".

I don't doubt it is possible - just not always. Some may hurt too much to want to do so. Others may not care enough to try, and some just cannot do it.

Approximately 1% of the general population is incapable (physically incapable) of doing anything genuinely "lovingly". They can fake "love" - but only if, and while, they believe it in their interests to do so. Such people can do the "at" emotions - anger, rage, hatred, revenge, but not the "with" emotions - love, care, share etc..

"Conscious uncoupling" is a lovely target, a great outcome to aim for - but shouldn't we be careful not to demonise those who - because their partner cannot or will not co-operate - are unable to achieve their goal. Adding an unachievable aspiration when suffering in a marital breakup may lead to unwanted consequences.


----------



## In Absentia (Aug 21, 2012)

cp3o said:


> "Conscious uncoupling" is a lovely target, a great outcome to aim for - but shouldn't we be careful not to demonise those who - because their partner cannot or will not co-operate - are unable to achieve their goal. Adding an unachievable aspiration when suffering in a marital breakup may lead to unwanted consequences.


Nobody is demonising anything... I do believe it should be the target and I understand it can be difficult. Personally, it's taken me many months to come to grip with it, but I'm happy. It's a matter of acceptance. But I understand it's not for everybody.


----------



## cp3o (Jun 2, 2018)

In Absentia said:


> Nobody is demonising anything... I do believe it should be the target and I understand it can be difficult. Personally, it's taken me many months to come to grip with it, but I'm happy. It's a matter of acceptance. But I understand it's not for everybody.


My apologies - I should have made my meaning clearer.

I in no way meant to imply that you were demonising, or would demonise, others. The thought did not occur.

There are, however, some people who (can?) only see the world in terms of absolutes. That what one can do is doable by all if only they will try hard enough.

My intent was to minimise the likelihood of such over-simplification as widely as possible. Had I thought, as possibly I should, that my words could be taken personally I'd have changed them.


----------



## In Absentia (Aug 21, 2012)

cp3o said:


> My apologies - I should have made my meaning clearer.
> 
> Had I thought, as possibly I should, that my words could be taken personally I'd have changed them.



They weren't taken personally... maybe _I_ wasn't clear... :smile2:


----------



## Tilted 1 (Jul 23, 2019)

cp3o said:


> I defy anyone to explain to me, or to the many others in similar situations, how I could "create a healthy co-parenting situation" with a person with an inherited DNA variation that precluded truthfulness, remorse, fidelity (sexual and financial), conscience, empathy etc. etc..
> 
> She was what she was - she didn't choose to be violent, to live for the latest whim, to separate her children into one golden one and the dross. She had no choice. Any more than I could fly unaided - we neither had the requisite equipment. There is a hope of treatment by genetic modification, it's reckoned to be at least two generations away.
> 
> ...


You are persistent, in believing that you are the whiteist of KISA, and contrary to just divorcing you earn special accolades for ( hanging in there) it doesn't.

So as you state, in each and every post, After you say you are out. Going on an on on just how unique or a special case you are, because instead of taking charge and leaving with the kids. You stayed to endure the struggle.

You are just as confused as you think everyone is out to get you. So with your logic of thinking, that you raised the bar for your wife so both you and she could live the lie. Neighborhood, status, cars, and the false impression that you lived the perfect marriage. It's a copout to settle because it lacks in courage, to do the hard or right thing.

Well l guess if someone wants to convince the world he may as well believe in the words that he keeps repeating,. But talking out of both sides of the mouth is unbecoming at best. 

And proves that you like to have things your way, and then you debate is what you are into and spin and spin, just maybe this played a part in to your failed marriage why life manages to give you some type of glee in thinking because YOU stayed makes the most sense, and that maybe it wasn't a DNA flaw but maybe and outlet your wife sought?

Don't see this as a attack but, a version of not everyone believes words but it's action that make the difference, because you chose to stay that is your choice, but to keep illusions up only benefits the one who believes he's the martyr. 

So in the end do you still remain in the marriage? Or do you hang in there because of guilt, it to keep the illusion that you have earned a badge of special honor. So when both are cheaters it kinda makes it even, it really doesn't.


----------



## cp3o (Jun 2, 2018)

Tilted 1 said:


> You are persistent, in believing that you are the whiteist of KISA, and contrary to just divorcing you earn special accolades for ( hanging in there) it doesn't.
> 
> So as you state, in each and every post, After you say you are out. Going on an on on just how unique or a special case you are, because instead of taking charge and leaving with the kids. You stayed to endure the struggle.
> 
> ...


I stated the facts - you (mis)interpreted them. Your problem - not mine.

What character oddity does it take to think that one knows better than those who were there what happened thirty+ years ago? - Your problem - not mine.

You know better than me the likely diagnosis of my XW's character and the cause of it? Without having met her? Better than someone who spent 25 years with her - better than someone who knew her family? Your problem - not mine.

A few years ago I gathered rigorous evidential data over several weeks, data that led me over many months of application to the only conclusion that I can find which explains her behaviour. You appear to have reached your conclusion based on ignorance and hurt - Your problem - not mine. 

_"It's a copout to settle because it lacks in courage, to do the hard or right thing." _ I am confident that I did the right thing and that taking the action you, in your woeful ignorance, appear to think I should have taken would have been wrong. I have the facts - you have the frothing mouth - Your problem - not mine.

_"So in the end do you still remain in the marriage?"_ I suspect it might have tainted your life with the appearance of intellectual rigour - but had you bothered to read my profile you would know the answer.

_"So when both are cheaters it kinda makes it even, it really doesn't."_ This does not make sense. I accept that you either don't read my posts, or are unable to comprehend them - but you might pay a little attention to your own attempts at English. I think you may have meant
a) 
_"So when both are cheaters it kinda makes it even, it really does - doesn't it"_ either that or
b)
_"So, if you think that when both are cheaters it kinda makes it even, it doesn't."_ 

a) is exactly the thinking that betrayed my X as having a severe emotional deficit. As, IMO, it does with anyone else that holds that view.

b) Exactly my position - which is why, unlike my spouse, I waited until after my W had destroyed our relationship before letting friendship become more.

I am competent, based on my experience, the data I gathered and my mental capacity to draw conclusions which you may dislike - but conclusions that you, in any sense of morality, may not denigrate. You lack the experience, you have almost none of the data and, based on what I read here, your mental capacity is not exceptional. Your problems - not mine.

_"Don't see this as a attack but_ - as a sensitive, caring and supportive attempt to explain to you that just because you have problems with reality doesn't make you a bad person. My X, the psychopath, who was a bad person wasn't bad from choice - she had no ability to be otherwise. She is not alone.


----------



## Tilted 1 (Jul 23, 2019)

cp3o said:


> I stated the facts - you (mis)interpreted them. Your problem - not mine.
> 
> What character oddity does it take to think that one knows better than those who were there what happened thirty+ years ago? - Your problem - not mine.
> 
> ...


I give you that, she wasn't alone. And sofar as my morality intact, operating normal. As for your 25 yr endurance with her still doesn't mean it was the right one but for some odd reason you must have liked it, you stayed. For a odd reason despite the rigorous research for weeks finding out she was problematic, one occurrence with one of my children l give the short quick answer. She out!..

And l assume care of the kids, but instead you subjected your kid the her skill set and ultimately see the effects of that. As you stated come with there share of issues and to admit them to a parent who always believes to be right, it's no wonder they won't open that can of worms.

As it is you stayed, and the OP question was answered by you. No you don't necessarily have to leave, but some how some way the kids still pay the price.


----------



## Trickster (Nov 19, 2011)

I was in an unhappy marriage for the longest time. I was weak, depressed, angry and I wasn't all that happy to be around. I guess we could've stayed together until our daughter graduated and moved out but then what? She would realize our whole marriage was a lie.

My daughter see's the happy version of me, something that she has never seen before. My life is amazing. I think everybody is happier now, even my ex-wife.

My daughter seems happy and she wasn't destroyed by our divorce.


----------



## cp3o (Jun 2, 2018)

Tilted 1 said:


> I give you that, she wasn't alone. And sofar as my morality intact, operating normal. As for your 25 yr endurance with her still doesn't mean it was the right one but for some odd reason you must have liked it, you stayed. For a odd reason despite the rigorous research for weeks finding out she was problematic, one occurrence with one of my children l give the short quick answer. She out!..
> 
> And l assume care of the kids, but instead you subjected your kid the her skill set and ultimately see the effects of that. As you stated come with there share of issues and to admit them to a parent who always believes to be right, it's no wonder they won't open that can of worms.
> 
> As it is you stayed, and the OP question was answered by you. No you don't necessarily have to leave, but some how some way the kids still pay the price.


You appear to be unable to understand relatively simple English - you are clearly incapable of writing it lucidly.

Your false narrative is based on a fantasy which bears no likeness to the reality which I, and my kids, lived. You arbitrarily reject my statements and replace them with meandering and incoherent flights of your imagination - replacements which, surprise, surprise, enable you to justify your behaviour in a different situation.

If you have to ignore and bend the truth to accommodate your emotional pain I'm sorry for you. It is quite possible that your actions were the best, or at least the least bad, that could be done for your kid. It does not mean that what you did is the only acceptable way forward for other people in other situations, with other spouses, under other jurisdictions, in different eras and with different kids. People doing things differently to you is not a criticism of you. No two situations are alike and a refusal to admit that, or that the appropriate responses may differ, is disturbing. You appear to be doubting the basis for your action - don't take your angst out on me.

My conscience is clear, trying to make sense of your irrational refusals to accept the truth leads me to question whether you have similar inner peace.

I wish you well.


----------



## Tilted 1 (Jul 23, 2019)

uhtred said:


> Sometimes people talk about staying together in an unhappy marriage for the children.
> 
> I was a child with unhappy parents, and IMHO, its a very bad idea. My parents always said how much they "loved" each other, and so as a child I saw their miserable broken relationship as "love". It took me a very long time to unlearn that lesson.
> 
> Other thoughts? Should parents stay in an unhappy marriage for the benefit of their children?


As you have said in your very own words it is the parents, who did think or gave the illusion of for the children. But in the end continue to fool themselves who saw there miserable broken marriage as something other. And yet in the end justify their morality, as a good decision. And age isn't a prevy into wisdom, but become twisted and warped in thinking it was for the children. There are always choices to be made and if a person is selfish enough they stay and validated the relationship by endurance and ill reasoning. 

While it true, no other person can know another's plight or story. But because of denying or omission of facts to say the children involved are not affected. Is relative and and if you care for the children leave and if one can better care for them do so. Life is chances that turn on a dime, put your big boots on or your big girl undies on, and leave the fractured broken relationship, it is not logical to stay for lack a of a better word fear. Or one with fear can spin it as they may, and end up thinking themselves justified and continue to do so.

I am one who thinks if you can't handle the reality of choices, then someone else will pickup the tab. The kids.


----------

