perception of the girl

[vashti]

Maybe they should consider that the proper answer is to get divorced for the good of the children. Living in a household filled with contention and simmering anger between parents isn't better than living with one parent or the other.

But you seem to assume thatthe only two choices are to divorce or to be miserable. I think it is possible to stay with your spouse for the sake of the kids, and not necessarily be miserable or feel the need to make sure everyone knows it isn't your cup of tea. In fact, my best friend went through a patch like this, and I can tell you for sure, it doesn't have to be nasty. She stayed in her marriage because she didn't want to break up her kid's family and subject them to the possibility of a step parent. She believed her husband was having a fling on the side. I thought she was incredibly strong and selfless. In fact, I am quite sure I would do the same. No way would I want my kids to be dragged through the dating-parents scenario.

[vashti]

Well, I think the situation was a little different for my friend. She would have left her husband in a New York minute if she didn't have any kids.

[Mish]

I agree with Vash that a lot changes when the kids arrive. You can't be selfish anymore and you have to look after their well being. At the same time though, it's not a license to cheat. I would find it very difficult to forgive a cheating partner even with children. Without kids they'd be out of my life the second it happened. I don't know how you tolerated a cheating spouse Indig.

[Indignant]

Well, I think the situation was a little different for my friend. She would have left her husband in a New York minute if she didn't have any kids.

am i glad that we had no kids, you can't even imagine.

[Indignant]

I don't disagree, Indignant ... but the choices we make at that moment will determine whether we will be praised or scorned.

Carl.

why should we care if we are praised or scorned? i don't live for someone else's approvement of my actions. the choices that we make make us who we are, human nonetheless.

[Pink68]

Seeing as now I am tha single mom..and yes I tried to save my marriage not only for the kids but for myself. Even though I had been quite unhappy the way things had been for a while, I was trying to take action for change. I take the vows of marriage and commitment very seriously. My ex was involved with his HS girlfriend for at least 6 weeks before I found out...
I am sorry but I condem them both..If you are that unhappy that you feel the need to develop a relationship (sexual or otherwise) while you are still involved with someone then well you suck!! Grow a pair and get out first. As for the GF, who knew me too.. I think she is lowest of low. I would never involve myself with a married man for obvious reasons and I have way too much respect for myself as well. Why would anyone be with someone who cheats? Oh and FWIW she cheated on him when they dated before....

Just another note as to child support the guy doesn't always pay through the nose..I make more than my ex and that affects it..he gets off easy IMO.

[Lite]

Just another note as to child support the guy doesn't always pay through the nose..I make more than my ex and that affects it..he gets off easy IMO.

Not always, but usually.

[Cain]

Just another note as to child support the guy doesn't always pay through the nose..I make more than my ex and that affects it..he gets off easy IMO.

From what I understand, child support isn't based off of what you make. It's based off of what he makes.

[Pink68]

In my state it is based on both..they take a % of your combined income that is considered the % that is needed to care for children. That amount is split based on each persons % of income...mine 60% his 40%...

His take home is just over 3000 and his share of child support less than 600... and we had two children...

Still just thrilled to be free of him and he is actually a better father to them now...

[vashti]

From what I understand, child support isn't based off of what you make. It's based off of what he makes.

No, it's not. It's based on both incomes. If she makes more, she will get less (and sometimes none).

[Aeradalia]

Children aren't nearly so fragile as is commonly believed. They can sense hidden emotions... sometimes seemingly better than adults, especially from their parents. I grew up with parents who stayed together for the "sake of the kids," and I'll tell you what... it certainly didn't feel that way to me as a child. Sure they 'acted' as they should, and they did what they were supposed to... etc.. But I knew there wasn't love in the home... this was more of a business arrangement. I lost respect for my parents slowly overtime because of their contradictory way of living - man and woman are supposed to love one another and when they have kids, the love includes them - bullshit. My mom got knocked up, my dad stayed and 'did the right thing' and then 21 years later... they FINALLY got divorced. Spent my childhood waiting for all the tension to finally break free and for them to be divorced. Then maybe there wouldn't be all the stress from words that are never spoken.

I think women who stay for the 'sake of the children' aren't even thinking about the children - they're thinking of the financial hardships.. etc. So what? There are plenty of financial assistance programs out there to help you get back on your feet. My parents broke up several times... I was happy to go through these changes as a kid, because I felt things would finally get better - emotionally speaking. Maybe they'd both find this thing called 'love' and I'd actually be able to know what it was they have been talking about - because I sure as hell hadn't seen it being shared between them.

No, a loveless marriage for the sake of the children does more emotional harm than to divorce... divorce ends the tension that permeates the air. Since my mom had gotten remarried, I get to see a happier side to her now... and I can't help but to wonder what it would've been like to have been raised by that woman.

[vashti]

Sorry aeradalia, but you are wrong about it being about money (at least for some women). My best friend is actually rather affluent. She'd be just fine financially without her husband. She stayed solely for her kids.

BTW - my friend's marriage is fine now, in fact better than ever. The girlfriend is long gone. Had she left her marriage, they never would have gotten to this point, and they'd likely be stuck with step parents in the mix.

You may not have agreed with your parent's decision to stay together for your sake, but trust me: things might have been much worse with a new step mom or step dad, and usually things ARE worse for the kids, at least according to most studies.

EDIT: I should say that I don't fault women AT ALL for staying because of financial reasons. It is just common sense to know that most women can't afford to support children in the style they are accustomed to when divorced, and things like that are important to moms.

[Aeradalia]

I'm sorry but staying for 'stability' sake in regards to children even though the relationship with the other partner will be fake, the love will be fake, and the happy 'stable' home will all be built on a foundation of lies is just morally wrong. It messes with the minds of the children that grow up in that environment... leads to the development of adults that have stable lives but no concept of love, how to maintain a truly healthy relationship, or even how to either care for another or care for themselves emotionally.

Albeit, it probably cancels itself out... the children raised in stable homes in which both parents deceived them will grow to be adults who become stable enough financially to afford the therapy sessions required to untangle the emotional mess they become.

It's just easier to stay in a loveless relationship when children are involved, than it is to go out and find another stable relationship that truly has love in which the children can learn from.

This is no different than it being easier for a wife to stay with an abusive husband than it is for her to leave him. She has financial security, a life that is fairly 'stable,' and all she has to do is take a few licks every now and then. However, in this scenario... she is not praised for 'sticking it out' with the abusive husband... she is criticized... and praised for taking a gamble in trying to leave him. And when children are involved... she leaves to 'save the children' from 'emotional and physical abuse.'

What of the emotional confusion a child will endure knowing that mom and dad lied to them for years? Who cares if it's for the 'best of intentions'... they lied... that's a hard pill to swallow.

To risk emotional destruction on a child for the sake of 'stability' is no different than risking physical abuse (which has emotional consequences too) on a child for the sake of 'stability.' Just because one is less obvious to the laymen than the other... doesn't make it any less wrong.

[Indignant]

What of the emotional confusion a child will endure knowing that mom and dad lied to them for years? Who cares if it's for the 'best of intentions'... they lied... that's a hard pill to swallow.

i always wanted to have a father. i could care less if he lied to us. a father figure is so important in a kids life. he wouldn't be lying to me, his one night stand with another woman wouldn't have changes how he felt about me either.

[Indignant]

what was hard, is getting used to all the different men she brought home, developing relationships and feelings for them, and then losing them.