I hear a LOT of people who've divorced and remarried say they wish they'd put all that energy and effort into saving the marriage. Because unless it's abuse, addiction, or serial adultery, your "problems" are probably going to follow you to the new spouse too.

AMEN! I'm tired of people having kids and still thinking it's all about them. Unless, like momof4 said, it's something really bad, you need to suck it up and deal with it. Your happiness isn't your highest priority anymore.

I remember in college, we were in a van of about 8 or 9 of us, and someone asked whose original parents were still together? Me and one other guy raised our hands.

I think that's a pretty sad statement on our society.

Shortly after I was married, I was struck by how much of a pain in the neck it would be to go through all that effort all over again with another woman and her family. Getting to know my wife and her extended family took years.

I wonder if dating services let you specify that you're only interested in orphans.

I remember in college, we were in a van of about 8 or 9 of us, and someone asked whose original parents were still together? Me and one other guy raised our hands.

I'd have probably raised my hand before going "oh, wait a minute..." My mom divorced my biological father when I was very young because it really was a toxic situation. She remarried, just before I was 3, to the only father I can remember ... And *they* are still together going on 35 years later.

That's a really impressive letter, Amy. I'm glad you posted it. Few people in this life can openly admit to their mistakes without going "but it wasn't my fault!".

My parents recently divorced after 37 years of marriage. It was awful. Even though me & my sibs are all adults, it was still devastating. I can't imagine what it must be like for children...

My parents divorced when the baby went to college. It was bad. I can't imagine it when I was younger. And they didn't have a great marriage, and while I was an angry little girl at my dad for many years, I still wanted them together. Selfish little thing that I was, I am not alone in that feeling.

M4, you and I disagree about important stuff, but:

> an angry little girl at my dad for many
> years, I still wanted them together

That's a REALLY important part of human nature... One that doesn't go away, no matter how much people want to believe that pairing standards can be tailored to the needs of adults who want to live their lives in a parade of petulant demands to surrounding strangers (see also, gay marriage). Children naturally want their parents to be together. And most women naturally want sheltering fidelity from a man who promises to take them to the grave. The list goes on an on, and all the people who prattle about "studies" and "research" are blind to these enduring truths.

They're also heartless assholes.

Echoing everything above (particularly that of momof4), I just want to say how (I know it sounds silly, but) proud I am of you, Amy, for being one of the only people out there to confront this issue head-on. Very few people have the guts to say this, that divorce is NOT an OK thing to put children through. That there are worse things, but those worse things are rare.

People who are afraid to say this only encourage the selfishness that allows people to rationalize these actions.

Yes, Lyssa. This disregard for the development of children, including but not limited to their feelings, makes me think that many divorcing parents (and smug, supportive bystanders) regard these crippling dislocations as fulfillment of their duty on the human bucket brigade: Well, the kid's gotta learn that life is tragic sooner of later; I (the parent) may as well be the one to deliver the first stunning blow... That's just how things work...

>>Children naturally want their parents to be together.

Yes, yes, yes, Crid.

But in momof4's case, her parents DID stick it out together until their youngest was in college.

And cornerdemon tells us: "Even though me & my sibs are all adults, [my parents' recent divorce] was still devastating".

Thus some snippy commenters (moi!) might conclude that human nature is too frail to handle parental divorce at any age.

Which makes the benefits of unhappy couples grimly staggering on "for the sake of the children" rather questionable.

It was bad. I can't imagine it when I was younger.

I'm glad your parents stuck it out. I still remember my nephew, crying on my bed because his father was too much of an asshole to see what he was doing. "Why is he doing this? I just want him to come home and be my dad" is not something any 10-year-old should have to say.

People can be good parents when they're not living at home, but it's not the same as a constant, steady presence.

Which makes the benefits of unhappy couples grimly staggering on "for the sake of the children" rather questionable.

I would argue that, while parental divorce is devastating at any age, at least adults have the framework for creating a sense of perspective about it. And a 20-year-old doesn't need her parent the way a 10-year-old does. Or shouldn't.

>>I would argue that, while parental divorce is devastating at any age, at least adults have the framework for creating a sense of perspective about it.

MonicaP,
I'd argue you need to qualify your comment:)

Parental divorce "can be" devastating "at any age". (Although I find "devastating" far too strong a word for its proper effect on adults - if only because you're then going to run out suitably charged words to describe, say, losing your entire family in an earthquake!).

OTOH, it can be a blissful relief to grown children in many circs. and especially if they are mature enough to regard their parents as individuals.

If an adult suddenly "feels" like a little girl or a little boy when faced with an emotional blow, it's time for a shrink, or a drink.

It's sure as shit not the fault of society going to the dogs.

Jody writes: "Thus some snippy commenters (moi!) might conclude that human nature is too frail to handle parental divorce at any age.

Which makes the benefits of unhappy couples grimly staggering on 'for the sake of the children' rather questionable. "

Well, there's frail and then there's frail. Don't trivialize the issue. My parents divorced when I was 10. I won't get into all of the details, but the months leading up to the divorce were incredibly ugly; my mom was having an affair, my dad suspected, and I got dragged into it and I was at ground zero when the big reveal occurred. Yeah, it probably would have been better for me if they had stayed together until I was in college. But I know now that there was no way that was going to happen. Perhaps it would have been better if they had gone ahead and divorced when I was a toddler, even though my life would have been completely different. I've since read some studies suggesting that around the age of 10 is the absolute worst time for a child's parents to divorce.

Certainly, though, there's no point in "staying together for the kids" once the kids are gone. And in fact, there are situations where even with vulnerable-age kids, it's better to divorce. In cases where one spouse is clearly an unfit parent, it's the responsibility of the other spouse to get the kids away from that if possible. I think that what people react to when they hear about divorce and kids is the typical stuff you hear these days from a lot of divorcees: "he didn't fulfill me", "she wasn't hot enough", etc.

>>Don't trivialize the issue.

Fair(ish) comment, Cousin Dave.

Though my target was the confusion in Crid's catch-all response to comments here which were making a completely different argument about parents who stay married.

As you say, you can't tell HOW your own life might have been had your own parents acted differently when you were ten.

(But I get a sense that it's hard to imagine things being much worse than they were for you then. Yes, it is when you are young - and powerless - that your parents' behavior can pack a hell of a wallop. I agree - and I do not mock.)

My husband's parents separated when he was 3 and divorced when he was 5. His first memory is of his father packing up his things and moving out. The reason for the divorce will never be determined accurately. His mom claims that his dad was cheating, his dad claims his mom is a psycho.

The damage done to both my husband and his sister was significant. My SIL is still obviously looking for a daddy figure and is severely promiscuous (not, let's go to the club and get laid, but more along the lines of bring a case of tequila and bring the football team home). She has been completely unable to have a successful relationship despite being middle aged.

My husband has severe abandonment issues that are now mine to deal with. We manage to have a great relationship, but it gets very difficult at times.

The other major impact occurs with my husbands half siblings from his father's second marriage. Those children received the constantly available involved father with the financial security that my husband and his sister never got. I'll spare the details, but my husband is still very resentful of the life that the 'kids' got, because his father never gave him (or his sister) the same opportunities. This has created a great rift between the children...the first batch enduring their mom loosing the house, the second batch going on trips to Europe and studying abroad at their every inclination. I suspect their relationships will never recover.

My husband and I didn't have children, and made a very specific point not to. Even then, I don't take the idea of divorce lightly. Although I don't think that society should restrict ones ability to divorce, I do think that people should regard marriage more seriously before taking the plunge.

-Julie

Jody, thanks for your last comment, and I'm not being sarcastic. My parents and I have all long since buried all the hatchets (although it took a while, including a period of me moving far away from both of them), and I've since been able to talk to them some about what was going on. Although my mom does not regret leaving my dad, she now freely admits that she though that getting another man would be a quick fix, and she found out that it wasn't.

I don't spend any time thinking about how my life might have been better if they had stayed together, because I can see now that that simply wasn't going to happen. It would be easy to blame my mom for an "I was bored" excuse, but I know that it was a lot more complicated than that. My dad grew up in a family that, although they didn't have much, was very close knit and supportive (and remains so). My mom, on the other hand, grew up in a family that, while considered upper middle class in the area, was very unstable. My maternal grandmother was a borderline; my grandfather was a shyster who died at a young age from excessive partying, and most of my mom's cousins are malignant narcissists. My dad's upbringing and background did not prepare him to deal with all of that, so they were not a well matched couple to begin with.

Cousin Dave,
Creeping along here at the bottom of the thread with sincerity too. This:

"...Although my mom does not regret leaving my dad, she now freely admits that she though that getting another man would be a quick fix, and she found out that it wasn't"

-is an amazing admission (from her) & probably explains a bit how you've moved so far forward. Unless you're a saint - and few of us are - it's hard to even begin to forgive collateral damage inflicted on our young selves until we understand why it happened.

Am I the only one here who wasn't permanently destroyed by my parents' divorce?

My parents, as far as I could tell, were perfectly normal and happy, when one day when I was about 14, my mom sat me down and said dad was leaving. I was *floored*. Dad moved out soon after, and I saw him every week or so, depending on his schedule.

Me? No drugs, no promiscuity, no sudden dive in grades (well, I was kinda freaked for about 2 weeks, but I was an A student, so a minor blip didn't make much difference), no rebellious smoking/drinking/bad crowd shit... I was "resilient", and adapted to the new normal.

Later, I found out my dad was a bit of a serial cheat, and gave him a yelling-at. But as an adult, I'm on great terms with both parents, am successfully married to a wonderful man, employed... pretty much totally normal and unaffected as far as I can tell.

Maybe it's because the divorce was very civilized - neither spoke an ill word of the other, and I was never made into the messenger, etc - but you'd think the sudden shock aspect of it would have been the cause of some trust issues or some such thing. But no.

And, in retrospect, I'm sure the divorce was the best thing for my parents, and *happy*, civilized parents (who cared about and for me) count for a lot. Perhaps it's not the divorce itself, but the quality thereof that is a determining factor?

> Which makes the benefits of unhappy couples
> grimly staggering on "for the sake of the
> children" rather questionable.

The confusion is your own. Nobody's asking anyone to "stagger grimly"... Grim staggering is the habit of irresponsible teenagers. I'm saying we should offer no patience to adults who marry badly, or who want to imprint their children's souls with their own bitterness for the choices they alone have made about what their lives have become. (I seriously believe this is what many dim people think families are supposed to do, as in the bucket brigade described again.)

We are far, far too forgiving of incompetent mating by parents. We forgive them on behalf of parties too young —or distracted, or dumbstruck— to speak for themselves, and we are not nicer people for doing so.

You and the person who imagines herself to be a "lovelysoul" should go out for nice lady's tea sometime.

>>We are far, far too forgiving of incompetent mating by parents. We forgive them on behalf of parties too young —or distracted, or dumbstruck— to speak for themselves, and we are not nicer people for doing so.

Do try to read before you jump in with both feet in your mouth, Crid.

My comment was related to the ADULT children of divorcing parents.
Neither momof4, nor cornerdemon are too young, dumbstruck or distracted to express their own devastation/disapproval.

They are grown up - and they can speak for themselves.

Jody, thanks for the kind words. I can assure you that I am no saint. I was pretty screwed up throughout my teenage years (will touch on what Lauren said in a moment). I just barely made it through high school, and I graduated pretty aimless and directionless. Since I have a somewhat introverted personality anyway, that exaggerated and I became a near-complete loner, with only a few friends, most of them druggies. Oddly enough, I never did the stuff myself; the idea just didn't appeal to me. But I kept myself in an emotional state that was sort of like being drugged -- I rarely allowed myself to have feelings of any sort.

A year after I graduated high school, the manager of a restaurant I worked in accused me of something that was patently unfair. I'll skip the details, but basically he accused me of being lazy and busted me a day's pay the morning after I had worked 14 hours because two other people didn't show up for their shifts. For the first time in my life, I allowed myself to be really, seriously pissed off. I quit on the spot, and then I took that angry energy and channeled it and focused it for the next three years, to get myself into and through college.

The beginning of the reconciliation, in my own mind, was after I graduated and I had a good job in Florida. One day I thought to myself, "Y'know, I'm making good money and I'm living on the beach. This being angry all the time business is starting to suck." There was a lot more to the process, but that was basically the start of it, when I realized that my anger was no longer serving a purpose. And I think maybe my own willingness to de-escalate was what started my parents getting back on civil terms with each other, which in turn helped clear the decks for me to practice a bit of forgiveness.

Lauren writes: "Perhaps it's not the divorce itself, but the quality thereof that is a determining factor? "

Don't totally agree, but there is some truth to that. My own parents' divorce was a wild ride, and in the immediate aftermath, both of them got themselves into very serious financial trouble, and we lived a hand-to-mouth existence for a while afterwards. I ran with the bad crowd because in the places we were living, there was no good crowd -- it was the bad crowd or nothing. Learned a lot of street smarts from that, I did...

> They are grown up - and they can speak
> for themselves

Yet again, the love for touchy-feely melodrama causes you to prefer operatically gratifying solutions to problems, rather than not having a problem in the first place. This is essentially bloodlust.

>>Yet again, the love for touchy-feely melodrama causes you to prefer ope...lust.

Golly, Crid.

Technically, your words are in the right order.
But you're not making any sense.

Pick up a book called "The Way We Never Were" by Stephanie Koontz. I do believe that you will find some VERY interesting research on this topic. You will find that families that stay together "for the kids" often have as many problems as those who don't. Generalizations such as "kids from intact families do better" are myths and are not based on proper research. The myth that the "Leave it to Beaver" families ever existed is completely false and is keeping politicians from making policies that really work in this era.

> The myth that the "Leave it to Beaver"
> families ever existed

I distrust any source that can't consider this without recourse to 1950s television sitcoms... The pandering media have claimed too much of their mindshare.

"I distrust any source that can't consider this without recourse to 1950s television sitcoms"

The 1950's was pretty much the only time that the 2 parent, nuclear, loving family even remotely existed. It IS the ideal that everyone is citing, even if they aren't aware of it.

Karen, I have to tell you that I'm not a big fan of people who try to gaslight me by telling me that the things that I've seen with my own eyes didn't exist. So I looked up this Stephanie Koontz and found out a few things. For starters, she's a professor at ultra-leftist Evergreen State College in Oregon, an institution that is virulently opposed to just about everything that average Americans do. Koontz is a big cheerleader for you-can-have-it-all feminism, and she seems perfectly happy to ignore data that doesn't fit her pet theories: In an article that she published in the Christian Science Monitor, linked to from her personal Web site, she tries to make the case that the opt-out mom doesn't exist, in the face of all evidence that it does. She accomplishes this by very carefully cherry-picking the data, taking a few small special cases and then claiming, without cites, that they represent the norm. That doesn't give me a lot of confidence in her scholarship.

Cousin Dave - read the book. You cannot make any judgement based on something you have never even picked up to read. You just look and say "ah - liberal" and disreagrd. Which, by the way, is a point she makes in the book. Everyone has a political agenda that blurs their perception. Just like you. Her book does not say that there are no problems in society, just that we are too busy finger pointing without really understand what we are looking at.

Children of divorce do worse "across the board"?? What board? What quantatative measure is Amy quoting here? Or is it a qualitative measure?

Dave - you disregard and entire book that has plenty of research because you feel that she is some blathering liberal but yet jump onboard Amys statement that "children of parents who've split up have the worst outcomes across the board" and yet I see no QUESTION about where that material comes from. You just agree because it sounds right to you and you have been told that by the media...and all of those "traditional family values".

Would it make you feel better if I told you that I learned about Ms. Koontz right here, from Amy??? Amy has read and quoted from her book "History of Marriage" in order to make certain points. As a matter of fact, it is because of Amys interesting information quoted from Koontz that I picked up both of her books.

Karen, I'm not going to do that because life is short and I'm not wasting any more of it reading Marxist propaganda. I know enough about the institution she works for to know that it is fundementally a subversive organization. One of the basic tenants of Marxism is that facts must submit to ideology. Koontz and you are both trying to gaslight me, telling me that the things that I've seen with my own eyes don't exist. I'm not an idiot. I know what I saw. I know what I lived. And Amy has covered the children-of-divorce topic here many times before, and offered up the reams of data. If you're too lazy to do some Googling, that's not my problem.

And BTW, I don't accuse Koontz of being a "liberal". A liberal is someone with whom I may not agree on every issue, but at the end of the day, we both agree that Western civilization is a pretty good thing overall. We agree on where we're going, although we may disagree on how to get there. Koontz is, judging by the material on her Web site and her choice of employment, a leftist. Leftists dedicate their life and existence to destroying all of the things which, as I've observed, have made it possible for human beings to live in somewhat of a state of dignity. To a leftist, raw power is the only thing that exists and the only thing worth living for. I can't tell you how much that disgusts me.

Yes Dave - those Marxist bastards are still out to get you!!

I will tell you this - I know what I have lived and what I have seen too. And it sure as hell does not conform to your "child of divorce scarred for life pity fucking party" bullshit either so get over yourself.

> And it sure as hell does not conform
> to your "child of divorce scarred for
> life pity fucking party" bullshit
> either so get over yourself.

Never use quotation marks unless you're quoting.

The bitterness of your rhetoric suggest that your complaints about families only being happy on TV shows suggest sour grapes. REALLY sour grapes.

Too many suggests. Sorry. But I think you're kinda steamed...

Am I the only person who recognizes that the common trait for all these children "devastated" by divorce is the complete and utter lack of respect their parents had towards them and doing what is right during the divorce, such as not bad mouthing the other parent, staying involved with school events, excercising a 50/50 visitation schedule with daily contact through phone calls, and overall encouraging a loving relationship between child and their other parent?
No wonder everyone was "devastated" but really were you devastated by divorce or were you devastated by your parents selfishly dragging you into the heart of grown up issues and not working together to maximize your time with both of them? Divorce is a situation, but it is a situation that can go a multitude of ways, it can have all the markings of "we never wanted to be together and we were miserable for 18 years but kindly waited til you were in college so we could slap you with the reality that the loving home you grew up in and the parents that demonstrated a marriage you wanted was really a giant and elusive scam" or it can have the markings of a "bitter and I don't care at all that my 10 year old is incapable of grasping adultery my sole intention is to try to make her hate her other parent instead of putting that effort into loving her and being there for her" or your parents could have done what was right if they so chose to get divorced, done it in a way that gave you an opportunity to have two great examples of parents and possibly loving adult relationships. People and their attitudes and inability to consider their children's needs above their desire to slander or punish an ex is the problem in divorce, not necessarily divorce itself. Your parents all had choices to make, choices bigger than do we stay married or get divorced...they had a choice in how they would interact with you before, during and after that initial decision was made, and EVERY ONE of them failed you.

or your parents could have done what was right if they so chose to get divorced, done it in a way that gave you an opportunity to have two great examples of parents and possibly loving adult relationships.

Sarah, in tying this statement to the original letter, as well as to the accounts of some of the previous posters, you are advising based on a relationship that does not exist. You cannot simultaneously divorce amicably and be a good parent if you do not (in the case of the LW) yet possess the skills to have an amicable marriage and be a good parent. This must come first. I don't want to bore everyone else by repeating myself further, so I will ask you go go over to the comments on the original column for my response there.

In response to the divorced parents failing the children, this is probably (at least somewhat) true in most cases (give me a second, I may be able to hedge a little further there...). But, ideally, the parents married with eyes wide open about who the other person really was and then decided, bilaterally, to have a child. Choosing well is the best thing for your future kids. Finding out your spouse and/or your marriage is not what you thought it was or would be in your dreams must be quite a blow. There really is no ideal way to divorce when you have kids, there is just doing the best you can with what you have. While Karen condemns the "Leave it to Beaver"-style marriage model, I likewise condemn Sarah's "Leave it to Beaver"-style divorce. While there are true, documented cases, it is far from attainable to most.

> Divorce is a situation

Oh. Divorce is a situation. Maybe more parents should make that clear to their children when they let them know what's going down. Kids, we're going to have a situation here.

> not working together to maximize your
> time with both of them

An important way to "maximize" that time is to be married.

> I likewise condemn Sarah's "Leave it
> to Beaver"-style divorce.

This Six kid's got mad skillz.

Seriously, do you want to teach your kids how to choose a spouse badly but be a nice guy when everything turns to 'situational' shit, or do you want to teach them how to be married well?

I want my children to learn that my relationship from their father is independent of my relationship with them and vice versa - that whether I am with their dad or not I am still their mother and that I made a decision I thought was right and that I hope they never have to stand on my bridge but if they do I want them to know that they need to make the best decision holistically.
Please don't get me wrong, divorce is not ideal. As a society we too easily jump in and out of marriages and I whole-heartedly believe that we should really understand the characteristics of a good spouse and a good partner before we get married. But how will you know what a good partner looks like, if you don't have an example of that? Sure you'll have kids who are raised to be good parents, but a good parent doesn't mean a good partner. When I searched for my husband, my first characteristics I looked for were whether or not he was a good partner. Was he loving, attentive, supportive (emotionally and physically), was he stable, did he protect me, etc. After I knew he was a good partner, I looked for characteristics that he was a good father. After our kids are grown, I still have the rest of my life for he and I, it was important to me that he be first and foremost a great partner.
Let me ask you, hypothetically speaking, if when the child is in bed or not present a father beats, and rapes the childs mother...but then when the child is around he simply emotionally torments the mother by alienating her and by all accounts just looking at the relationship with the child he is a great dad...takes his kid to baseball games, talks to him, takes him fishing and camping, coaches his soccer team, etc...would you tell this woman to suck it up and go to counseling. And what if the father isn't willing? Then what should she do?

What makes it so unattainable to divorce amicably and share an active involvement in the child's life? Anything is possible if two parties are willing and I am just saying if you have tried and all else fails and your only remaining options are to spend 13 years with someone who ignores your very existance unless you incessantly glue your child to your hip or getting a divorce and continuing to be there as a constant figure to your child but living seperately from the other parent, I personally believe the latter is better and attainable. I have seen it done, I have also seen the "roommates" theory, the bitter divorce , the stay togetehr til the kids are grown, and the absent parent done as well. Of all these situations (minding that having two parents demonstrating a mutual love and respect and partnership is off the table in these sceanarios), I believe excercising a "leave -it to beaver divorce" to be the least detrimental.
That's my personal opinion and I hope the LW understands that Ms. Alkon's response was Ms. Alkon's personal opinion and that the LW will need to make her own decision. She can't do something based on what someone else is saying she should do.

BTW, I know Amy sometimes leaves things out based on length but just because the LW wrote that the spouse is a great father and didn't feel the need to announce herself as an equally caring and great mother, doesn't mean she isn't. I feel it keeps getting implied that she is not a good parent or that he is a better parent, but we don't know that. Unless one of you has personal insight.

> I want my children to learn that my
> relationship from their father is
> independent of my relationship with
> them and vice versa

What makes you think so, other than you want so badly for it to be true?

(Thanks for putting that right at the top, it saved me a bunch of reading.)

Are you suggesting they are linked? So women who have babies by rapist must love their rapist?

The relationship is independent. Whether I am married to my child's dad or not, they still get to be my children, and his. A piece of paper or a living arrangment does not negate biology...at least not how they taught it where I attended school.

Are you suggesting they are linked? So women who have babies by rapist must love their rapist?

The relationship is independent. Whether I am married to my child's dad or not, they still get to be my children, and his. A piece of paper or a living arrangment does not negate biology...at least not how they taught it where I attended school.

> Are you suggesting they are linked?

If you don't think children care if they have loving parents who're together...

Tell us a little more about yourself, Sarah. Family background, geography, education, etc. But keep it quick and peppy, just a couple lines.

I didn't say kids don't care, of course that is ideal. but you can't completely love your child if you secretly or non secretly hate their other parent. Kids are a reflection of their parent so when you ignore or alienate their parent, they can have a tough emotional reaction to that, and child whose parents divorce the second they are grown, often have a harsh reaction to that as well, at times even feeling as though their entire childhood family life was a lie.

I grew up in a house of "stay together for the kids", great parents, no demonstration of love, or partnership between them. Weren't mean or bitter about it, just didnt care if the other was there or not.
I married a man who was a great dad but a lousy partner, whose parents divorced in an ugly and bitter battle. He could do or die without me. We lived in the same house but didnt share the same life.
We divorced when my daughter was 3 in a "leave it to beaver style divorce after 6 months of marriage counseling that led to the admittance of, if I didnt have a kid with you I wouldn't even know you. I am wasting my life because society says it is "right." We decided it's easy for society to say that when they don't have to feel lonely in the same room as someone. We decided if all we would be is friends for our daughter, we didnt have to give up our own needs to do that.
We both went on to find great partners who also happen to be great parents. We all remain in close contact and friendly terms for our daughter and none of us have ever been happier or regret it. We share her equally and go to every event together. She needs both our permission to do major things (like spend the summer with her Aunt and Uncle across the country) and we go to every event with her and given joint birthday parties every year.
Our daughter is 13, well balanced, straight a student who has played violin for 3 years. And has a great relationship with all four of us and is very happy, we all are.
Geography, I grew up in Arizona.
Education, I have my degree in Business Communications and I took courses in psychology simply for the experience of understanding human interactions and emotions. But I don't think it's about education, I think its about life experience.

Why the hell does abuse keep creeping into these discussions? There was no evidence of any kind of abuse in the original letter, except maybe the abuse of the self-pity button. Amy, if I may speak for her a moment, would not tell someone to "suck it up for the kid" in a case like Sarah described above. What we (or I, at least) have been talking about is a situation like the LW describes. Both made bad decisions and created a marriage that was Not Miserable (to borrow the LW's sign-off), but was not what they thought it would be. Hubby loves the kid and is willing to spend time with Wifey for his benefit. Wifey thought having a kid would solve her neediness problems. One of them is at least trying a little to do right by their son. In this situation, the 5-year-old doesn't give a flying fig that Mommy did not choose the right partner. He cares only that he will not see one of his parents as much if they divorce. No one is getting abused (I am inferring from the letter), so there is the possibility of both partners working together to keep their son as stable as possible.

And in the case of the "friendly roommates" situation, the kid should absolutely not know he is the only reason his parents are together. If he does, then the parents aren't doing it right.

Okay, that last post snuck in there on me. When I referred to the "situation Sarah described above," I meant in her 10:36 am post, the one with the examples of abuse.

We decided if all we would be is friends for our daughter, we didnt have to give up our own needs to do that.

Why not?

I was simply asking if the advice would be the same. I personally believe that abuse expands beyond physical and that emotional abuse is far more distructive but hey that's just me what do I know?

Because children shouldn't end your life or force you to be miserable in your life. They should enhance it and be a joyous and wonderful thing to celebrate. It is mine, and my ex's, opinion that if we stayed together we would both be making sacrifices that would yeild no benefit to her. We couldn't see building our entire marriage simply on her little shoulders. We agreed we could continue to be great parents and still show her how a healthy relationship (with other people) should work. We were incapable of providing her an environment we wanted her to have together, so we made a decision and we have been successful.

I think there is not enough credit being given to what kids have the ability to observe and infer as a result. Even if no one tells a child they are the only reason mommy and daddy are together, doesn't mean that the kid doesn't pick up on it. Kind of like how you try to calm a crying baby when you yourself is upset...never works!

But as you point out this child doesn't give a fig...I apologize, I hadn't realized that this five year old wrote in how they felt or that you personally took the time to sit down with this child or that you even observed the child and how he interacts with each parent seperately as well as both parents jointly. What an interesting new fact...I take it all back. You are right...where shall I sign to become an advocate for lousy marriages, it sounds like a great time!

I was simply asking if the advice would be the same.

And I answered that. In fact, I answered that earlier in the comments for the original letter.

I personally believe that abuse expands beyond physical and that emotional abuse is far more distructive but hey that's just me what do I know?

I personally believe that, too, which is why I include emotional abuse under the term "abuse." And , wow, with the defensiveness there.

Because children shouldn't end your life or force you to be miserable in your life.

The children are not forcing you to be miserable, you are making you miserable. If there is abuse, then removing yourself and the children from the situation would make everyone less miserable, sure. But in the LW's case, she is not miserable, she said that explicitly. Her son is not forcing her to be miserable. Staying in the marriage as-is would surely make everyone there miserable, which is why I say again that the must work on that.

Even if no one tells a child they are the only reason mommy and daddy are together, doesn't mean that the kid doesn't pick up on it

Only if they are not acting friendly to each other. You know how people say to smile to make yourself feel better? Well, making the effort to focus on what is good in your partner and good in your relationship would go a long way to making it easier and easier for it to actually be better.

I apologize, I hadn't realized that this five year old wrote in how they felt or that you personally took the time to sit down with this child or that you even observed the child and how he interacts with each parent seperately as well as both parents jointly. What an interesting new fact...I take it all back. You are right...where shall I sign to become an advocate for lousy marriages, it sounds like a great time!

Why are you attacking me over things I did not say? I am not advocating lousy marriages, I am advocating trying to make them not lousy.
And, no, I do not know for sure what this boy is feeling or how he interacts with his parents. The LW does say that she is jealous over her husband's relationship with their son, so from what information I have there, they have some of the warmth and affection that the LW craves from her husband.
According to Piaget's stages of intellectual development, a 5-year-old is not yet capable of abstract thought based on previously learned logic. To quote: Reality not firm. Perceptions dominate judgment. So, yes, if the parents are acting resentful and snippy to each other, he will pick up on it (so don't do it). But you will not be able to explain to him while he is at that age that you are leaving Daddy because he was not the right man for you. He is Daddy to the kid, not your life partner.

Sorry, forgot to post a link there. I found a good, concise chart of Piaget's stages of development here: http://www.childdevelopmentinfo.com/development/piaget.shtml

> They should enhance it and be a joyous
> and wonderful thing to celebrate.

Right. Sure they should. And let's always remember: If they DON'T enhance and bring joy, the little fuckers can be PUNISHED...

Ah hahahahaha! AAAAHHHHH HAH HAH HAH HAHAH HAA HAAR! Grrrrr!

We're the PARENTS! We can fucking well TELL the kids what's supposed to be important to them! And if they don't like it, well tough titties! Life's dark, you little rug rats, and the sooner you learn about this the better! *I* had to learn that years ago, and now it's *your* turn!

Grrr! Snarl!

Marriage and relationships shouldn't ever be something to put up with or get through day after day. Something I've noticed is that if every single time a person has complained to me about there spouse, I've been able to identify a similar flaw in my friend that they are guilty of. The truth is that one person can't keep a marriage together, but it does take two to argue and bicker. Humility is a key to marriage.