My thoughts?

He's not a friend to her during the day? How dare he! What's he doing working in the military when she needs a friend? And his audacity at working all day and then coming home and looking forward to some love and sex! Jebus! What a cad.

She should get a job. A fulltime job. Allow her husband to retire early. Thank him for putting food on the table all these years, and let him know she'll take care of that from now on, but she would appreciate it if he would regain his youthful appearance and pay her a bit more attention.

It's important that she allow him to retire, because otherwise can she begin to understand what he goes through on a daily basis to get that mortgage paid?

While she's at work, and he's at the gym, she can worry if he's getting any on the side.

As for therapy, she should ask herself what she's expecting to get out of it. Is she honestly open to critiques of her behavior? If not, if she is expecting mainly a set of discussions geared mainly towards her complaints and ganging up on her husband, well, who can blame him for not being terribly interested in that?

Here here to both of you.

Yeah, she's being an idiot acepting attention from these guys. It's easy for them to seem great now, when she's not living with them. Does she think they won't get complacent after they've had her a while? Of course they will. That's marriage. She needs to immediately cut off all contact with them.

THAT said, she needs to tell her husband, very succintly, that it's counseling or divorce. Just because he's in the military doesn't mean she has to stay with him no matter what. And she doesn't owe him sex if she gets no attention otherwise. A loveless marriage isn't good for kids. Neither is a mom whose head is turned by any flattery she gets. She needs to work on that issue in counseling, and try to improve her marriage via counseling. But if that doesn't work, she should leave him. Not because someone is flattering her, but because a marriage with no love or common interest is no good for anyone in the family. And she needs to accept that dating around and finding passion won't be priority one when she does it. Taking care of her kids will be. She may date again at some point and find love, but it won't be right away.

Heh. Better her than me; I only have 2 kids, and couldn't even begin to deal with soap-operatic-like situations, so I stay the hell out of them. BF and I are doing fine; so are the girls (his too). If you don't want any drama in your life, don't go looking for it, as in:

Then a guy I broke up with 15 years ago (he was jealous and controlling) found me via Google and once again, I was hit with a declaration of undying love. (Ours was not a sexual relationship, but it was passionate and fiery and I do miss that.) Add to the mix the case of mistaken identity on an email recycling list I am on and I have Guy # 3 calling me sexy and doing his darndest to get in my pants (I met him in person when he told me where he worked and his attention is flattering, if a bit shocking.)

Why the hell would you go to Guy #3's place of work, if you weren't looking for a little action? She's got 4 kids?? How does she find the time to live a soap opera with 4 kids?? I feel bad for them; they'll be the ones hurt the most if she actually plays out her little "drama". Sheesh. o_O

PS - Vacation was great; loved Virginia, Busch Gardens; and we even stayed on Chincoteague Island for a night. The pony swim isn't until next week, so we didn't get to see that, but we did see the wild ponies on Asstateague Island, and went swimming there, too. Nice time was had by all.

The priority is your children's welfare, so what's needed is to fix this marriage. First, you need to convince him it needs fixing; then he and you can solve it together.

If you are as unhappy as you say, how can you still be having sex with your husband? I'd expect that to be the first casualty. The fact that it is not makes me wonder if things are as bad as you say. If he doesn't see a problem, perhaps there isn't one?

If plain words don't reach your husband, try actions. (I'm going to get flamed for this.) Cry. Hit the bottle. Give him the cold shoulder. Give him the warm shoulder: go for a sexy weekend without the children. Make a counseling appointment for the pair of you. Tell your husband you have done this. Then either you go together, or you go alone, but you go. Anything to break the communication barrier that seems to have sprung up between you.

The other moths round your flame - ignore them and don't encourage any more. That's a dead end.

He's selfish? Is she kidding me? Um, lady, maybe he's working hard because you and he made 4 children together -- not just one or two but four -- and he's doing the right thing and being responsible for the people he made and brought into this world. You should shut up and do the same and be glad you made them with someone who is that responsible when there's so many that aren't.

Seriously. All that whining about him not appreciating her when it seems the opposite is true. She doesn't appreciate him and all he's doing for not just the country but for her and the children all because he's working hard to provide instead of staring at her adoringly for 12 hours a day telling her she's the most beautiful woman in the world and then -- wtf? -- she's also simultaneously complaining because he does still desire her. Someone's screwed up and it ain't the hubby. This woman doesn't want to be loved; she wants to be worshipped.

Welcome back, Flynne! I'm glad you had a great time but missed you here. (BTW, I'm the poster previously known as Donna; I switched my handle because I've run into other Donnas in cyberspace.)

I'd have to agree with most of the commentary here. Its the wife that is screwed up. Frankly though I don't think divorce is the best case scenario as one person suggested.

Lets consider that for just a moment, if she does divorce she's all but GOT custody, the courts are tough enough on men in general when it comes to that. On soldiers, good luck getting more than visitation. She WILL get paid a tidy sum in child support, and after 15 years of marriage she'll be entitled to half of his retirement.

However until that time:

The money she'll get from child support will not be enough to take care of them AND her.

That means she'll have to get a job, full time.

So instead of TWO parents working hard to take care of them, providing home, love, support, etc...suddenly these 4 kids are down to ONE full time parent and one that they see now and again.

And THAT full time parent, even if she's got the qualifications (which I doubt in this case) to get a high paying job, will see them only a few hours a day herself.

So two parents who love & take care of their kids but not so much each other...thats bad for them.

But one exhausted parent, one occasional visitor, and a LOT of time in daycare and away from parental supervision...THAT is good for em?

Give me a break. The woman needs to get her priorities straight, pull her head out of her ass, realize that she is NOT the center of the universe, and pay attention to the important things.

Side note: Soldiers are not staying at work for long hours because they WANT to. If he's been in for the amount of time they've been married, he's probably of relatively high rank, that makes for enormous amounts of responsibility that does not end at 5 p.m. It goes until the job is done for the day, THEN he can go home.

I would actually respect this gal if she went in and told her husband what is going on and why. At least he has the chance to decide after full disclosure how he wants to deal with a material change in the terms of his marriage.

Somehow, I suspect her real course of action will be to "give in" to the hard, urgent demands of her lover(s) for her beauty.

Naturally, however, she will begin fucking other men without first bothering to explain to her husband that naked fun time with third parties is now on the menu in this marriage.

But it is all *his* fault, of course, that other men can now stick their dicks in her with her eager participation.

Sorry to be so crude to make the point, but that is where this is really headed. She already made her decision, this is just her emotional masturbation in preparation for the affair(s).

In sum, look everyone, a bored woman with leisure time rationalizing fucking other men by blaming (and not informing) her husband. Hmm. Almost a cliche, I think.

Ms. Bovary, paging Ms. Emma Bovary...

thought I'd point out that being a parent doesn't make you not a human being, with all the astounding mess that comes with that, and it's easy to say that children should always come first, because they do... but that doesn't change being human. Having needs and interests, and so on.

"what we have here is a failure to communicate..."

This is often what brings everything to a boiling point. Both parties may well be wrong, and the husband can't hide behind work, while the wife can't hide behind being needy, but it may be simple like that. She sounds pretty insecure when she speaks the words about how he is out saving the world but doesn't pay attention to her. It may be true, or she may just not think the kind of attention he is paying is what she wanted.

Many is the woman that looks at a man as a mate, with a mind to how she can change him to meet her specifications, and many is the bitter woman later who is irritated when he won't change. It is possible that he has changed in such a way as to turn away from her, too. Hard to say.

A lot of guys [myself included] have heard the words about impossibilities said with a straight face:
"you don't spend enough time with me, you don't spend enough time with the kids, you don't work enough on the house, and your job doesn't pay well enough..." and that was said by a stay at home mom with an advanced engineering degree. I was astounded at the acceptance of 4 contradictions at once, but she wasn't kidding. Did this scenerio play out in the family in question? Who knows, but I'd bet a few pennies on it. Therein lies the rub.

She isn't WRONG to think that, exactly. Humans are interesting in the way they can hold several contradictions in mind at once. It only works when you realize how contradictory you are being though. You can always wish for something else, but what happens when you actually think you can have all the contradictions at once?

It'd be nice if someone would sit down with the wife and tell her all about men. About how we carry the whole family without thinking, about how we don't always ask for help when we need it, about how holding all the shoppingbags while sighing and comiserating with other guys at the mall is actually love, about how he may forget to buy flowers, but wouldn't think twice about taking an injury to save her from one.

Then? Maybe they can go to some counselling to see if they can learn to communicate. Dear husband isn't off the hook in this, he needs to do better as well, even if it is only to understand the signs. I know a lot of guys that can tell you when an engine isn't running quite right, but they don't understand why a woman spends so much time to look good to them. The part where she is trying to keep his eye, IS important... she does value that, she hasn't just given up...

As for the just for the night boys buzzing around? Does she understand that they are only there because they don't have to carry the family on their backs? That they are only there looking for a freebie?

The best case I can see is that best friend #1 acts as a betweener to try and help both, but he's got to put his libido back in his pants, and actually THINK of her welfare first. Souring her marriege is a nuclear threat to her and the kids if everything is otherwise sound, divorce is a very ugly and costly thing, sometimes necessary, but always difficult.

Sure she sounds like a whiner, but it really doesn't help anyone much to just tell her to STFU. They both have some problems... and she may be realizing now that all the things she has done to try and keep this man [having children to lock him in, and then trying to stay good looking to keep him there] didn't work out quite the way she had planned. And he especially should realize how lucky he is that she hasn't kicked him out of the house, and filed for divorce. She could easily make his life a living hell. They don't seem as far apart as it could be, there is still something to be saved, perhaps.

And in saving that, the children are taken care of... build the strong foundation, and the family endures.

A big problem here is getting your self-worth through how somebody else values you. (HINT: As I've said before in various forms, "It's called SELF-worth, not what everybody thinks of me-worth.")

And I suspect you're right, Spartee...they write to me looking for "There, there, poor dear, your spirit is what really matters...fly, butterfly, fly!"

Whoops, you wrote to the wrong girl. As I've also said before, when it comes to kids' welfare, and what parents owe them, I'm just to the right of Dr. Laura.

Wow, I've never read such selfish, self-absorbed, self-obsessed drivel from start to finish ... Amy I'm sure you make these letters up! At least, I wish you did :/

People today want to have it all. Anything less than perfection and they feel conned.

I hope she reads this, because she certainly needs the reality check. Sure, we can all commiserate; everyone in this busy life has surely felt neglected a little, at some point. But 4 kids? Any reasonable woman would worry about jeopardizing her relationship with these flirtations, even if only because raising 4 kids alone is nigh impossible. Say you hate the husband, you still need his monetary and fatherly (however minimal) contributions.

I dont think that she's as far gone as the others do. She makes a few attempts to acknowledge his good points. Most people have to bedevil their other half to justify the cheating, and don't acknowledge the positives. She needs to get his attention, and I think surrounding herself with these men is her attempt. He'll find out; she'll have her damsel in distress moment ("I felt so alone! Never mind that I'm supposedly raising four kids and have a job and charity work! I have NEEDS!") and he will drop everything and run to her rescue. At least, in her imagination, that's how it works out. In reality, he will lose all respect for her and their marriage, and probably find a bimbette ready and willing to flatter his ego, while keeping their marriage intact because he knows he can't raise a family alone. So, she loses her husband's love and respect and when these other men tire of her (as they will) she will be worse off than before and probably turn to drink or pills. A touching Hallmark story, yes?

If she wants the man's attention she can figure out how to get it without risking all she has. Which, in case she has forgotten, is a lot in this age of single moms who have to bust their asses to feed the kids they hardly get to see, let alone have any time for themselves. You are fortunate, woman! Count your blessings!

Why not propose an open marriage? Because what's good for the goose isn't good for the gander? Surely her husband has tires of the occasional obligatory roll in the hay? He may appreciate the opportunity to bang those young ladies all starry-eyed by power and uniform, especially if he's been keeping his pants on while his wife makes him feel like he's lucky to do her.

Oh Please!
I was in a fucked up relationship for the last 6 years of a 16 year marriage. I stayed, like all of you are demanding, for the sake of my 2 children. I can honestly say I have never fought so hard for anything as I fought for my marriage. You all are correct: My children needed to come first. If that had been the case, i would have left my husband much sooner than I did! What is good about staying in a relationship and being miserable? What the hell was I showing my kids? That it's okay for Mom to give everything up in order to "please her man"? Amy, i disagree with you. I think it is important for our children to see us happy and fufilled, not only as they're Mothers, but as a human beings. I want my children to feel that they are capable of anything, I want them to be happy and secure individuals. I was absolutly unable to do that with my ex. There is no law that states a woman,(or any person for that matter) needs to stay in a place where they are unhappy for the sake of anything. We have worked so hard as women to be treated fairly. It makes me sad that we are still expected to give up our roles as sexual, happy humans in order to become good wives and Mothers. There is no reason that I cant be fufilled as a human being,as a woman, and not still be a kick ass Mom. My children are much happier where we are now. Why is it that for so many years, we "allowed" men to have affairs? We looked the other way at abuse, and neglect. Why is it MY role to save the marriage? I believe that marriage is a commited relationship between TWO people, and there is only so much 1 person can do to fix it. Here is what I say to the original letter: If you believe there is something there worth fighting for, talk to your husband and let him in on how you are feeling. If you have been trying for a number of years, and it keeps falling back on you, leave. Your 4 children will benefit greatly from seeing their parents happy. Even if they are not together!

So she's a 40 year old size four mother of four juggling four men.

Wow. Certainly qualifies as a MILF: a Mother I'd Like to Fire.

I would like to submit that this woman take her letter, reverse the pronouns, and question, "What if my husband had written this?" Betting the likelihood that she would not be so eager to defend his actions as she would her own, it would either cause her to A) re-evaluate her own thinking or B) work twice or even thrice as hard to justify them.

Why is it that when people think of marriage counseling that they believe that both parties have to attend in order to achieve success? They don't. My (soon to be ex-)husband and I started out going together, but most of the sessions ended in one on one talks that did a lot more for us than if we had both been present the entire time. And I mean, I don't even think this lady needs so much counseling as she does to pull her head out of her ass, but still. It's a thought.

Not sure, but a lot of the comments here were actually not all that helpful up until SwissArmyD's post. Telling her to ignore the husband's part in the marriage and look solely at herself doesn't really help the kids, if this is what the posters really want to have happen. She does show some weird insecurity issues and she does need to address them on her own. But the problems of communication in the marriage need to be looked at by both parties. So she has a lot of work ahead of her, but it will be worth it to end up with 4 well adjusted children.

> But the problems of communication
> in the marriage need to be looked
> at by both parties.

Oprah said that ten times in a row on television in 1987 and became the richest woman in America, Everything, everything was about "communication". Women like to talk, so it all becomes circuitously pornographic.

For those of you putting it back on the man, I'm still trying to glean from this:

"The kicker is that I am a 40 yr old mother of 4 who has been married for 15 years (albeit not altogether happily.) I don't know what I did to garner such devotion from three men I am not married to--and why the one I AM married to couldn't care less what I look like (I am a size 4 I fought hard to get back to after the children), spends all of his time at work (the world will come to a screeching halt if he's not there type) and who is not at all a friend to me during the day but demands his share of sex that I "owe" him because I am the wife."

what her actual complaint against the guy is. Christ, he sounds like what most of us fantasize about. Doesn't care if she's not a size 4. Works hard to provide for her and the 4 kids and still desires her through the stretch marks. Man, I should have it so bad.

This dingbat doesn't want a husband. She wants a trainer, the kind that flirts her into exercising and eating right.

She has got major issues.

Oh Please indeed jenney

I was in a fucked up relationship for the last 6 years of a 16 year marriage.
Sorry for you, but shes merely bored and frustrated

I stayed, like all of you are demanding, suggestingfor the sake of my 2 children. good for you

I can honestly say I have never fought so hard for anything as I fought for my marriage. You all are correct: My children needed to come first.
thank you for admitting we are right

If that had been the case, i would have left my husband much sooner than I did!
hindsight is 20/20. You couldnt have known it wouldnt work until you tried

What is good about staying in a relationship and being miserable? stability

What the hell was I showing my kids? maturity? selflessness? a willingness to put their needs ahead of your happiness?

That it's okay for Mom to give everything up in order to "please her man"? where did anyone suggest that she stay for her husbands sake?

Amy, i disagree with you. I think it is important for our children to see us happy and fufilled, not only as they're Mothers, but as a human beings. And if they have to give up their freinds, their toys, their home in order to see you happy

I want my children to feel that they are capable of anything, I want them to be happy and secure individuals.
even though they had to sacrifce the only life they knew?

I was absolutly unable to do that with my ex.
Unable to do what? Make your kids happy or make yourself happy?

There is no law that states a woman,(or any person for that matter) needs to stay in a place where they are unhappy for the sake of anything.
your right why should your children get in the way of your happiness

We have worked so hard as women to be treated fairly. It makes me sad that we are still expected to give up our roles as sexual, happy humans in order to become good wives and Mothers.
dont have kids or get married then, cause as a guy and can tell you I have no intention of being expected to give up my existance as a happy sexual being in order to become a good husband and father

There is no reason that I cant be fufilled as a human being,as a woman, and not still be a kick ass Mom.
until your motherly duties get in the way of your happiness right?

My children are much happier where we are now.
I'll take your word for that, but I'll also tell you this as abusive as my father was to my mother I was still upset at their divorce and the loss of my freinds and home. Once I was old enough to understand I got over it, but until that age your kids are saying they are happy just so things wont change further

Why is it that for so many years, we "allowed" men to have affairs?
I dont know why did you?

We looked the other way at abuse, and neglect.
again why? I never have

Why is it MY role to save the marriage?
because you chose to make a comitment

I believe that marriage is a commited relationship between TWO people, and there is only so much 1 person can do to fix it.
True enough, and to be fair you did try, but the LW hasnt

The LW is pissed that her militry husband wont risk prison by blowing off his job for her, while at the same time refusing to comunicate with him.

Well LW this is for you

You are cheating on him emotionally - and according to most of the women I know that is worse that cheating physically.

You are cheating on him, and its his fault?!? for working hard enough so you can be a stay at home mom.

These guys are interested in fucking you, not marrying you and provinding a home for you or your kids. Suppose you did leave your husband for one of them, why would they commit to you a person who does not honor her commitments?

Is he abusive, does he cheat on you, are their corpes of the women he murdered lining the basement?

I'm not going to suggest you stay with him no matter what(even though you swore to god to do just that)

All I am saying is that what kind of life do you really think your going to have as a middle aged divorcee with four kids?

If you have military housing you'll lose it, if he is getting a pay bonus to cover off base housing costs he'll lose it if he doesnt live there with you anymore.

If he is a real ass he could get himself discharged without retirement, and should he get remarried and subsequently die there will be no retirment abd the surviors benfit would go to the new wife.

Did it ever occur to you(or any woman for that matter) that he might be as bored with the rut as you are?

It never ceases to amazme me how women can talk ENDLESSLY about everything under the sun. But is something is bothering you and we ask what it is we get "Well if you dont know then I wont tell you"

For gods sake talk about sonething that mattters with your husband stop cheating on him and grow up

I don't know Amy. Speaking from experience, watching your mother stay with a man when it's slowly killing her (and we're not stupid, we know we're part of the reason for her sticking around) is as emotionally damaging to a kid's psyche as a divorce could ever be. Should her children really grow up watching their dad be a working robot and mom acting like that's fine?
Why doesn't this woman go to counseling by herself- the husband can come later. With how close she's drifting towards cheating I hope she realizes that'll fuck up her kids a lot faster then a divorce too!
But also...she's needy as fuck. A controlling ex was a 'passionate' relationship? Try smothering but a few years of neglect makes smothering look promising. That's just stupid. And she's trolling for guys online, is she simple? Is she trying to turn up missing?

I have to throw my own two cents in here that I completely agree with Amy's advice that "the kids come first" but disagree that it's as simple as "stick with the dad." Now, it does seem pretty obvious here that the husband hasn't done anything divorce-worthy - he's working hard to provide for a large family. LW just sounds bored and like she's expecting hubby to make life exciting for her with no effort on her part. As I tell my kids "if you're bored then you're boring" so she needs to figure out how to make her own self-esteem and stop looking to everyone else to make it for her.

BUT, there are times when it is not in the best interests of the kids to stay married. I don't tend to regret things, since I figure that what's done is done and you just go from there, but if I had my life to do over, I would certainly have left much sooner than I did. We're all much better off now, physically, emotionally, and financially. Yes, change is hard for children, but it doesn't take very long for the good to outweigh the loss.

I had a childhood full of 2 parents that weren't in love and we all knew it, and it was awful. They didn't fight a lot, didnt hit us, etc etc. It was still awful. We knew they were only together for us, and how do you think that makes a kid feel? Little guilt, perhaps, that their parents are unhappy b/c of them? No matter how the parent tries to play it, the kids know. Mine should've divorced early, instead of when the baby hit college. Would've been better for us all. So no, stability and staying in one house with a mom and dad are NOT always best for the kid. In fact, that would probably only be best in a low-income situation where there's just no possibility of making 2 households out of one. It is cheaper to live togetehr than apart.

Reminds me of a letter I read in another advice column, from a dad who said he and his wife were the envy of every couple, always holding hands, never arguing, very cute and sweet. Mom is needy, but husband doesn't mind, etc etc. The dad wrote because his son had gone out and found a needy replica of his mom to marry, so he could be happy too. Problem is dad doesn't love mom, can't stand her, is only waiting for sweet death to release him (because of the kids!!!!!!!!) and he knows son will end up miserable too, how does he tell son he's making a huge mistake?

So no, staying for the kids is not necessarily good, or even rarely good.

What is worse two parents who dont love each other living together, or

occasion visits with dad, while living in a new house with less of your stuff cause we cant afford it anymore (no doubt the fathers fault as well) with mom and her parade of lovers

Well, I do agree that two unhappy parents staying together does cause some issues.

That said, I think this lady is desperately Looking For Rescue and that's why she's going to cheat with at least one of these guys. She wants some Calgon guy to take her away from it all, except she doesn't sound like she's got any emotional maturity going on, so it'll all end in what lujlp said.

"He's selfish? Is she kidding me? Um, lady, maybe he's working hard "

I'm a married father of a 1 year old. I do alot of work, full time job, yardening, change the oil, wash the cars, etc. It's all work, I'm not sitting around watching football. But here's the thing Grammy, it aint 'work' in the marital sense. Those are all things i do for ME. Yes, even the career.

It actually IS selfish to know you have marital problems and just shuttle off to work every morning and never set the time aside to work on the marital problems. It's a lot easier to earn a living than to do the real hard work at the counselor's office.

I should have added: It's also harder for myself and many other guys to spend significant amounts of time taking care of the kids. 8 hours at work is far easier than 4 with the baby.

I'm not letting this guy off the hook, his castle is crumbling while he's off feeling important at the office (or the base in this case).

I grew up in the '70s-'80s, when the mantra was that the kids are better off if the parents split up, because of the harm of unhappy parents staying together. But what was this based on? What studies were there that said this was true? I hear people whose parents did stay together saying that it would have been better if they'd split up, but where are all the kids whose parents did split up? Surely they should be around saying they thank the lord every day that their parents split up and saved them a childhood of fighting? But no. The long-term studies we have show that kids are often better off if the parents stay together. For example, in Dr. Judith Wallerstein's long-term study of children in a community in California [see The Unexpected Legacy of Divorce], she found that the kids whose parents stayed together were noticeably better off than the kids in the same community whose parents split up. There's this fantasy that when the parents split up, the fighting will stop. The parents can live as more fulfilled human beings, and the kids won't be exposed to these stressful dysfunctional situations. Bullshit. What usually happens is that the kids get exposed to all kinds of new crap, plus the parents are still fighting, just not under one roof. And so the kids have all kinds of new stresses to deal with, and much less support to help them to cope. It's amazing that therapists came up with the exact recommendation (i.e. kids are better off if you split) to give parents validation to do exactly what they already wanted to do, and not only that, to make it seem like they're doing the kids a favor in the process. Had they really been concerned about the kids, they wouldn't have just said kids would be better off, but they'd have come up with an action plan to make sure that the kids were protected in the case of the divorce. See the movie The Squid and the Whale. I've never seen a better depiction of what it's like to have your parents divorcing. All too often, kids become pawns of the parents, being twisted emotionally to be on their "side". Their lives are completely disrupted, they may have to move and lose all of their friends and everything familiar to them. Time they spend with mom and dad will automatically be cut in half--now they can only spend it with one parent, never both. And there will be additional demands on the parents' time--the parents will be dating, so the kids will also maybe be alone in the evenings, whereas they used to be a family every evening. They'll have to deal with the instability of a succession of their parents' boyfriends and girlfriends. There will be less money for their care than there used to be, and there might be even more fighting about money. They may be exposed to the stresses of having one or two step-parents. And parents who prioritized their marital happiness over their kids' family happiness are going to prioritize their marital happiness with this new person over their kids, too, bumping the kids further down the list of priorities. Studies show that children raised by step-parents are at much higher risk of all kinds of problems, from sexual molestation to suicide and drug use. Even in families where these kinds of major problems aren't going on, studies show that children raised by step-mothers receive less basic medical care than kids being raised by their own mothers--benign neglect, in other words. Plus, kids from intact families don't have deadbeat dads, by definition. And as much press as deadbeat dads have gotten, due to it being both illegal and easily quantifiable, there's very little press about the much more common, and also insidious, practice of emotionally deadbeat dads. These are dads who may pay all their child support on time, but just have no time to nurture the kids from their previous marriage. They're too busy dating, or raising kids in a new marriage, with a new wife who gets angry at him when he leaves her home to spend time with his ex-wife's kids. It seems like most kids I know from broken homes (or in the case of one parent's death) have this same problem: dad gets remarried, and is thereafter nowhere to be seen. Or dad kicks kid out of house for minor infraction, using exaggerated response to misbehavior to justify their neglect of their kids from their previous marriage. You also get bare-minimum parental involvement. More kids from intact families go to college, and better colleges, than kids from broken homes. And to say that kids from broken homes are happier that way is a manipulation of data. Kids often want to please their parents. They want parental approval, especially if they sense that their relationship with their parent is precarious and so the only way to maintain that relationship is to please the parent. So sure, they might SAY things are better off--but that doesn't mean they are. And even making such a juxtaposition is a fallacy, because it's juxtaposing the WORST of marriages with the BEST of divorces. Mature, caring parents can make a less-than-ideal marriage FUNCTION even if they're not the happiest. If you already can't control yourself to the extent that you're making your kids upset with all your fighting, then that's kind of an indication that the kids are screwed either way, because you're not necessarily going to behave more maturely after the split. And don't even get me started on how parents lean on kids emotionally to help themselves during and after a divorce. How many times have you heard parents say something like "my daughter is more like my best friend than my daughter. I couldn't have gotten through this divorce without them!" Your child is not SUPPOSED to be like your best friend, and you're not supposed to be like their best friend. They need to be kids and deal with their kid problems, not YOUR problems. Being of such help to a parent may make the kid feel important and mature. But actually, it can often be damaging and emotionally stifling.

As for the LW--I don't see enough info to decide exactly what's going on. Is the wife annoyed because the husband works 18-hour days, or because he works 9-hour days? Does he just ignore and scorn her, except for sex, or is it that he just doesn't fawn over her? Is she working harder than him in raising the 4 kids, working the part-time job, taking care of the house, and doing volunteer work, or are they both contributing fully to their obligations, or is she slacking while he's working his tail off? Is he cold and distant, refusing to work on his marriage, or is he acting just fine and she's being needy. I think all of those issues need to be worked on and discussed by them in therapy. And, yeah, if he absolutely refuses to work on the marriage, leaving it all up to her, then that's definitely something to complain about. But flirting with a team of men is wrong, too, and she shouldn't even have been writing that component of the letter if she genuinely had no desire to cheat, and was merely concerned about her husband's coldness.

Quizzical - you bring up great points. For every anecdote from a grown kid who thinks the parents should have split there's one from a kid who says a divorce was the worst thing ever. I agree that a major factor is that reasonable, mature adults can probably make a marriage work and also that it takes reasonable, mature adults to make a divorce work. The fighting, the pettiness, the use of children as pawns and the power plays will still continue through and after a divorce. Just now, with no full-time parent, no sense of stability and usually a lot less money and fun stuff to go around.

I hear of parents that divorced and still spend time together with their kids as a family, and I am pleasantly surprised. It's certainly not the norm. Divorce = loss of family. Good or bad, family is still family and not having that is bad for kids. Is it worse than parents who don't get along? That depends. Is there abuse? Contempt? Open hostility? The letter writer doesn't say.

Marissa & Jenney - the letter writer doesn't say anything about a "fucked up" marriage OR a marriage that's "slowly killing her". Way to project.

Her attitude is very woe-is-me, life just happens and I had nothing to do with it! "Suddenly" a soap opera? No, dear. You and I both know that men rarely confess undying love OR try very hard to get into your pants if you are playing the faithful married lady and mother of four. 'Oh dear, I just got so faint I happened to fall right into his lap! It was all an accident!' Sure... that's how it happened, right?

We've gone over this before: marriage (especially with kids) is not about love and happiness. Sure, there should be some of both, if you're lucky, but there's a huge helping of sacrifice, duty and obligation too. Don't want that? Want to live with fiery passion and boundless love for the rest of your life? Don't get married and for the love of god, DON'T have kids! Yes, some can have it all, but usually, no.

I hear of parents that divorced and still spend time together with their kids as a family, and I am pleasantly surprised. It's certainly not the norm. Divorce = loss of family. Good or bad, family is still family and not having that is bad for kids. Is it worse than parents who don't get along? That depends. Is there abuse? Contempt? Open hostility? The letter writer doesn't say.

Christina--Yeah, it depends. In The Unexpected Legacy of Divorce, I think Wallerstein has a good rule of thumb:
If there's abuse, if the marriage is soul-killing, then in such circumstances, divorce might be better. I have friends who were really scarred emotionally by beatings and abuse, and it's clear they would have been better off without the abuser around. But if the marriage has the more common disagreements, arguments, bickering... those are things that could be worked on, and the marriage could be saved. But immature people or people with various personality disorders aren't the best at working on things, on compromising, etc. I lived in Japan for a number of years, and their divorce rate is tiny. The thing is, people in Japan are taught from a young age to compromise, to work as a team, to negotiate, to give and take. Those skills are not taught as successfully in the US. Even in little things, disagreements are stifled by, say, getting everyone in a family their own TV. Or buying different prepared meals for each person in a family. Little things, but eventually they can add up to difficulty in negotiating the intricacies of a marriage.

Quizzy: Comment here more often.

I second Crid. Quizzical, good choice of name. You think to ask the questions we don't.

I was going to post what Quizzical said, except he said it a thousand times better. I remember Gretchen and I had an interesting discussion about this exact situation. She wishes her parents had gotten divorced, and I wish mine hadn't.

According to Wallerstein, who is basically the expert in this field of child psychology, the children are always better off when the parents stay together, unless there is abuse, what she calls a "cruel marriage." In her book, she relates the story of the kid whose parents were no longer in love but were always there for the kids. The boy knew his parents were different, but his experience was that his parents loved him and his siblings enough to put them first. IIRC, his parents did divorce after the youngest was grown, and the subject got married and had kids.

I personally agree with Amy's perspective on the child issue, until I am ready to give up everything for someone else, I will not be having children either.

Thanks Crid, T's Grammy/(Deborah?), and Amy K! (oh, and Amy K., I'm not a "he").

Sorry, Quizzical.

Donna. I used to just post as Donna but it's too common a name. Not here, but other blogs I've bumped into other Donna's. I figured T's Grammy was better -- especially since I tend to obsess about my offspring! :)

I'm 28 years old and in law school. I still feel that I can look at my classmates, who are mostly in their mid-20s, and see serious differences between those with divorced families and those with intact. They lead their lives differently, they have different attitudes, and it's not good. There are definitely valid reasons for parents to split, but I'm with Amy- reasons that will truely improve the kids' lives are few and far between.