Parents breaking up. Is it selfish or immature.

Dave0301

Ha I've figured it out, Scanlas The 2nd is actually a Vulcan!

It's the only explanation for your ability to control your emotions!

But seriously, it is impossible to just suppress human emotions and force them under just so you can tolerate a living relationship with another person.

Also none of this takes into account that most people like and want a caring and lovable relationship with a partner. Everything from companionship to a sexual relationship. Living in a situation that you describe sounds soul destroying from my point of view.

Children from separated parents should be able to have both mother and father roles fulfilled as much as required as long as both parents take those roles seriously regardless of the living arrangements. I say all this coming from separated parents.

Scanlas The 2nd

fearcruach wrote: »

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Why would children learn to suppress their emotions and be dishonest about their desires. Their parents relationship situation is their own business.

If research conclusively pointed out that single parent households caused more harm to children than parents staying together just for the children would you still think parents should separate?

How can you say that the parent's relationship is their own business? A family is a unit. Children are part of that relationship. Children pick up on unhappiness between parents. It is not possible to 100% hide that from the children. The children often end up blaming themselves for their parents unhappiness. Not a good situation.

My parents did the old staying together for the kids thing and I knew they were unhappy for years. It was miserable. We all would have been much better off if they had split before they eventually did.

Just because you don't love your spouse doesn't mean you will be unhappy. No one should put their happiness based on being in a relationship With someone you love.

fearcruach

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Just because you don't love your spouse doesn't mean you will be unhappy. No one should put their happiness based on being in a relationship With someone you love.

I never said they were unhappy because they didn't love each other. Either way I do not think a relationship can survive without love.

Disregarding whether or not the parents are in love, it doesn't matter the cause of the unhappiness. If the parents are unhappy then it will poison the family.

Scanlas The 2nd

Dave0301 wrote: »

Ha I've figured it out, Scanlas The 2nd is actually a Vulcan!

It's the only explanation for your ability to control your emotions!

But seriously, it is impossible to just suppress human emotions and force them under just so you can tolerate a living relationship with another person.

Also none of this takes into account that most people like and want a caring and lovable relationship with a partner. Everything from companionship to a sexual relationship. Living in a situation that you describe sounds soul destroying from my point of view.

Children from separated parents should be able to have both mother and father roles fulfilled as much as required as long as both parents take those roles seriously regardless of the living arrangements. I say all this coming from separated parents.

The assumption seems to be you can only love or hate another human being, you can fall out of live with your spouse and still like them. People are using the extreme end of the spectrum as an argument, which I agree with. Constantly fighting parents should split up, but it is possible for two parents to not be in love and still like each other and enjoy their company.

My aunt left her house because she wasn't "in love" with her husband but still liked and loved him. I read that as she basically didn't fancy him and wanted to go off with another man at some stage. I just think that's a horrible thing to do for your selfish reasons at the expense of your children, especially when they my aunt and uncle got on well.

Dave0301

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

The assumption seems to be you can only love or hate another human being, you can fall out of live with your spouse and still like them. People are using the extreme end of the spectrum as an argument, which I agree with. Constantly fighting parents should split up, but it is possible for two parents to not be in love and still like each other and enjoy their company.

My aunt left her house because she wasn't "in love" with her husband but still liked and loved him. I read that as she basically didn't fancy him and wanted to go off with another man at some stage. I just think that's a horrible thing to do for your selfish reasons at the expense of your children, especially when they my aunt and uncle got on well.

But you are taking it that it was at "the expense of the children." There is no reason why those children can't have a great relationship with both parents.

Vanderbilt

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

I just think that's a horrible thing to do for your selfish reasons at the expense of your children, especially when they my aunt and uncle got on well.

At the expense of their nephew by the sounds of it:p

No, couples shouldn't live together if they're are unhappy. Their responsibilities towards their childers remain whether there under the same roof or not.

Borboletinha

My parents got divorced ten years ago. I still see my father as a selfish prick. Never respected him again, probably never will.

If you cant stand someone, dont have children with them. Actually, dont have children unless you are 100% sure you wanna spend the rest of your life with that person. :mad:

I have a daughter and plan on doing everything I can so she has both her parents together as long as she lives. Even if that means sacrificing my own happiness. Children dont ask to be born therefore they should be their parents priority!

mikemac1

hello divorce, bye bye daddy


Famous slogan back in the nineties

A2LUE42

antodeco wrote: »

The oul mistake of thinking your Aunties husband is your Uncle and vice versa!

What about the possibility that he isn't mistaken ?

Scanlas The 2nd

Dave0301 wrote: »

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

The assumption seems to be you can only love or hate another human being, you can fall out of live with your spouse and still like them. People are using the extreme end of the spectrum as an argument, which I agree with. Constantly fighting parents should split up, but it is possible for two parents to not be in love and still like each other and enjoy their company.

My aunt left her house because she wasn't "in love" with her husband but still liked and loved him. I read that as she basically didn't fancy him and wanted to go off with another man at some stage. I just think that's a horrible thing to do for your selfish reasons at the expense of your children, especially when they my aunt and uncle got on well.

But you are taking it that it was at "the expense of the children." There is no reason why those children can't have a great relationship with both parents.

It's my understanding that the research suggests children are better off in two parent households and suffer as a result of separated parents. If new research proves that's not true I'll amend my opinion.

Cat Melodeon

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

It's my understanding that the research suggests children are better off in two parent households and suffer as a result of separated parents. If new research proves that's not true I'll amend my opinion.

Here you go:
http://devsoc.cals.cornell.edu/cals/devsoc/outreach/cardi/publications/upload/04-2009-RNYM.pdf

recent research ... shows that although marriage
confers benefits to adults on average, those in poor quality marriages
are no better off than the single and, indeed, may fare worse
on some measures.

Ave Sodalis

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

It's my understanding that the research suggests children are better off in two parent households and suffer as a result of separated parents. If new research proves that's not true I'll amend my opinion.

What research is this?? From my own (quite extensive) experience from both sides, children of unhappy, unloving parents are far, far more miserable than children of separated parents.
My own mother is separated from my father and to be quite honest, I'm glad they are. I would hate to live as a child of two arguing, angry parents. My ex does. Even when I visited, when they tried to be civil, there were still massive fights which shook me, nevermind my ex or his sister. He had depression because of it and was emotionally unstable, crying when we were alone after his parents arguing.
You can't say parents shouldn't argue if they don't love eachother! It would be worse if they kept bottling things up...

Scanlas The 2nd

sup_dude wrote: »

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

It's my understanding that the research suggests children are better off in two parent households and suffer as a result of separated parents. If new research proves that's not true I'll amend my opinion.

What research is this?? From my own (quite extensive) experience from both sides, children of unhappy, unloving parents are far, far more miserable than children of separated parents.
My own mother is separated from my father and to be quite honest, I'm glad they are. I would hate to live as a child of two arguing, angry parents. My ex does. Even when I visited, when they tried to be civil, there were still massive fights which shook me, nevermind my ex or his sister. He had depression because of it and was emotionally unstable, crying when we were alone after his parents arguing.
You can't say parents shouldn't argue if they don't love eachother! It would be worse if they kept bottling things up...

Why the assumption that there is so much to bottle up between parents? Two parents can get on just fine without being love.

What is your opinion in the situation where parents who are still happy stay together for the kids? Should they split?

Scanlas The 2nd

Cat Melodeon wrote: »

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

It's my understanding that the research suggests children are better off in two parent households and suffer as a result of separated parents. If new research proves that's not true I'll amend my opinion.

Here you go:
http://devsoc.cals.cornell.edu/cals/devsoc/outreach/cardi/publications/upload/04-2009-RNYM.pdf

recent research ... shows that although marriage
confers benefits to adults on average, those in poor quality marriages
are no better off than the single and, indeed, may fare worse
on some measures.

What is a poor quality marriage? Depending on the definition the research could be completely in line with my beliefs.

Cat Melodeon

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

What is a poor quality marriage? Depending on the definition the research could be completely in line with my beliefs.

Ah well, I can't argue with a belief, no matter what research I produce.

marienbad

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

What is a poor quality marriage? Depending on the definition the research could be completely in line with my beliefs.

Normally I would'nt ask but in the context of your views can I enquire how old are you and are you or have you been married ?

Mr Benevolent

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

There should be no reason why two mature adults who aren't in love can't live happily together in the same house.

Ok, so you've proved that you're either:

a) 16 (and a virgin)

or

b) Never been in a relationship (and a virgin)

or

c) Trolling very badly (and a virgin)

or

d) Not very smart. And a virgin.

up for anything

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

I don't see why two mature adults can't stay together for their children and live in a happy household despite there reasons for breaking up. Assuming those reasons aren't extreme.

What comes under your heading of Not Extreme?

My aunt broke up with my uncle because she wasn't "in love" with him but she still "loved" him apparently. So she left and lived in an apartment for a year or so. I just think not being "in love" is a ridiculous reason not to stay living at home for your children. Really selfish. There should be no reason why two mature adults who aren't in love can't live happily together in the same house.

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

My aunt left her house because she wasn't "in love" with her husband but still liked and loved him. I read that as she basically didn't fancy him and wanted to go off with another man at some stage. I just think that's a horrible thing to do for your selfish reasons at the expense of your children, especially when they my aunt and uncle got on well.

There is one reason why two mature adults who have been intimate and had a relationship can't live happily together in the same house. It's called sex. Are people supposed to suppress their sexuality in order to keep the family 'together'.

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Why is it necessarily misery for two parents who aren't "in love" to live together and look after their children. Everything you do on a day to day basis is pretty much the same, you go to work come home, look after kids, do whatever you do for fun etc. it just so happens you aren't "in love" with the other parent. Why should two parents who aren't "in love" be miserable?

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Why the assumption that there is so much to bottle up between parents? Two parents can get on just fine without being love.

Sex again. In my experience very few people split up because they are no longer in love with each other at the same time. How do you expect this fictional mature couple to run their emotional and sex lives?


Take a look around you at the increasing amount of couples who are only together because of their joint mortgage noose. They aren't happy.

Scanlas The 2nd

Cat Melodeon wrote: »

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

What is a poor quality marriage? Depending on the definition the research could be completely in line with my beliefs.

Ah well, I can't argue with a belief, no matter what research I produce.

Yes you can, you can argue that my belief is wrong through reasoning and research.

My point is some parents are too quick to rationalise why it's better to break up for their kids when that may not be the case. You have to take every case on it's own merits and simply stating children are better off without unhappy parents is a black and white way of viewing the problem.

First of all just because parents are effectively cohabiting doesn't mean they are unhappy and it most certainly doesn't mean the children will be forced to live in a hostile household. I think that in many cases the parents are putting their own happiness ahead of their children and are far too quick to eliminate the option of staying together for the kids.

Scanlas The 2nd

up for anything wrote: »

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

I don't see why two mature adults can't stay together for their children and live in a happy household despite there reasons for breaking up. Assuming those reasons aren't extreme.

What comes under your heading of Not Extreme?

My aunt broke up with my uncle because she wasn't "in love" with him but she still "loved" him apparently. So she left and lived in an apartment for a year or so. I just think not being "in love" is a ridiculous reason not to stay living at home for your children. Really selfish. There should be no reason why two mature adults who aren't in love can't live happily together in the same house.

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

My aunt left her house because she wasn't "in love" with her husband but still liked and loved him. I read that as she basically didn't fancy him and wanted to go off with another man at some stage. I just think that's a horrible thing to do for your selfish reasons at the expense of your children, especially when they my aunt and uncle got on well.

There is one reason why two mature adults who have been intimate and had a relationship can't live happily together in the same house. It's called sex. Are people supposed to suppress their sexuality in order to keep the family 'together'.

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Why is it necessarily misery for two parents who aren't "in love" to live together and look after their children. Everything you do on a day to day basis is pretty much the same, you go to work come home, look after kids, do whatever you do for fun etc. it just so happens you aren't "in love" with the other parent. Why should two parents who aren't "in love" be miserable?

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Why the assumption that there is so much to bottle up between parents? Two parents can get on just fine without being love.

Sex again. In my experience very few people split up because they are no longer in love with each other at the same time. How do you expect this fictional mature couple to run their emotional and sex lives?


Take a look around you at the increasing amount of couples who are only together because of their joint mortgage noose. They aren't happy.

I wouldn't be happy in that situation either but you are selfish IMO when you put your own happiness ahead of your children's.

Again if it means not having sex for the sake of your children's well being then that's what you should do. Just because you don't live your partner doesn't mean you can't have sex, also there is masturbation and the option of agreeing to extra marital sex.

Also happiness isn't some constant variable. It fluctuates on a minute by minute basis.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/3235650/Children-in-single-parent-families-more-likely-to-suffer-emotional-problems-report-finds.html

up for anything

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

I wouldn't be happy in that situation either but you are selfish IMO when you put your own happiness ahead of your children's.

Again if it means not having sex for the sake of your children's well being then that's what you should do. Just because you don't live your partner doesn't mean you can't have sex, also there is masturbation and the option of agreeing to extra marital sex.

Also happiness isn't some constant variable. It fluctuates on a minute by minute basis.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/3235650/Children-in-single-parent-families-more-likely-to-suffer-emotional-problems-report-finds.html

You seem to be a very disciplined person and probably quite terrifying along the lines of a Jesuit.

As a parent I would do just about anything for one of my children, but constantly putting their happiness ahead of mine would not a happy, well-balanced and mature child/adult make in the long run and I would certainly end up psychotic as well as mature if I did.

Pherekydes

Confab wrote: »

Ok, so you've proved that you're either:

a) 16 (and a virgin)

or

b) Never been in a relationship (and a virgin)

or

c) Trolling very badly (and a virgin)

or

d) Not very smart. And a virgin.

Or all of the above.

jank

I think it depends on the situation. There are of course situations where the parents splitting up is of benefit to the children, especially in abusive homes. However, in modern Ireland there is an increasing aspects of selfishness and a throw away mentality that is affecting the family unit. Marriage isn't for life anymore, its just a thing you do for a few years. Sure marriage isn't even a given any more. So yes, I general I would say today in Ireland most people getting separated and have children to look after is selfish and immature.

Modern society is mean spirited and selfish to a large extent. Everyone thinks of themselves with little empathy for others. This extends to marriage and children. Children are almost commodities now. Mothers have them yet dump them into a creche at 6 months old to further her personal life. There is no self sacrifice any more, people aimlessly chasing some nonsense of a life they are sold in magazines or TV. Basically most people are idiots when it comes to thinking what they want out of life and good decision making.

Why the **** have kids in a marriage if you are not sure that the ****ing thing will last a more than 3 years! Its not like you can give them up when it doesn't suit you!

marienbad

jank wrote: »

I think it depends on the situation. There are of course situations where the parents splitting up is of benefit to the children, especially in abusive homes. However, in modern Ireland there is an increasing aspects of selfishness and a throw away mentality that is affecting the family unit. Marriage isn't for life anymore, its just a thing you do for a few years. Sure marriage isn't even a given any more. So yes, I general I would say today in Ireland most people getting separated and have children to look after is selfish and immature.

Modern society is mean spirited and selfish to a large extent. Everyone thinks of themselves with little empathy for others. This extends to marriage and children. Children are almost commodities now. Mothers have them yet dump them into a creche at 6 months old to further her personal life. There is no self sacrifice any more, people aimlessly chasing some nonsense of a life they are sold in magazines or TV. Basically most people are idiots when it comes to thinking what they want out of life and good decision making.

Why the **** have kids in a marriage if you are not sure that the ****ing thing will last a more than 3 years! Its not like you can give them up when it doesn't suit you!

And in most cases mothers ''dump them in creche at six months old'' as going back to work is the only way they can keep a roof over the child's head , but then don't let the truth get in the way of a good rant.

'' basically most people are idiots '' - what a statement , of course you would'nt be one of those idiots now would you. It never fails to astonish how people can generalise about others life situation.

starviewadams

My Mam and Dad broke up just before I was born.They tried couples therapy and spells of living with each other over the first few years of my life but they just couldn't get on with one another.Better to split up and raise a child in a peacful home rather then in a tension filled home where everyone is constantly walking on eggshells.

I don't consider either of my parents selfish or immature for their decision to split up,in fact I'd consider there decison more mature then some of the family's we lived beside who were often verbally and physically abusing each other in front of their kids but who refused to seperate.

jank

marienbad wrote: »

And in most cases mothers ''dump them in creche at six months old'' as going back to work is the only way they can keep a roof over the child's head , but then don't let the truth get in the way of a good rant.

Ah, ya must keep up those mortgage payments for the McMansion, the 2 cars, Sky TV and the overseas holidays every year.... Ever wonder why two parents have to work now when families are a lot smaller, 20-30 years ago one income was able to cope in the vast majority of the situation. Don't let facts get in YOUR way of a rant. The idea of cutting your cloth to measure is alien to many!

marienbad wrote: »

'' basically most people are idiots '' - what a statement , of course you would'nt be one of those idiots now would you. It never fails to astonish how people can generalise about others life situation.

Nice editing job there Mrs Marien. I said "Basically most people are idiots when it comes to thinking what they want out of life and good decision making."

Would be nice if you actually read what I type, not what you want me to type!

Kooli

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

First of all just because parents are effectively cohabiting doesn't mean they are unhappy and it most certainly doesn't mean the children will be forced to live in a hostile household. I think that in many cases the parents are putting their own happiness ahead of their children and are far too quick to eliminate the option of staying together for the kids.

OK so in the first sentence, it seems like you are talking about parents who are cohabiting happily.

And then you are talking about parents who split up 'for the sake of their own happiness'.

Aren't they two different sets of people?

The first group, who can cohabit happily as 'flatmates', yes that might work really well as long as they are both genuinely happy. But frankly, I can't imagine how that could possibly work. If I think of my past relationships, the thought of living with that person for the rest of my life (or 18 years or whatever) is pretty grim.

The second group are people who are not happy, and want to make themselves happy by splitting up. I don't see the problem with that? Two unhappy parents living together just doesn't work for anyone involved. Not the partners, and certainly not the children. I don't even see a rationale for trying to make that work to be honest...

Madam_X

Jank, marriages could become unhappy fifty years ago just as they can today - it's just that it was more taboo to break up. People marry because they want to now, rather than being under pressure to do so because it's the done thing - if anything, that's more of a recipe for a happy marriage.
And people hardly have children knowing the relationship won't last - they don't have a crystal ball. Things change, people change, stuff that you'd least expect happens. Ending a marriage is hardly a step that's taken lightly or done without good reason or a lot of work to save it.
I'd prefer modern society to a closed, secretive one where people had to bottle up their misery and ended up medicating themselves with alcohol; where children of parents deemed unable to cope were just snatched and placed in institutions. That was the reality in Ireland up to not terribly long ago.
My own mother's parents would have been better off separating - he was a violent (never to his children, but to his wife) alcoholic, she was an extremely unhappy, bitter woman. My mum and her brother couldn't get out of there fast enough. But ending a marriage, especially in rural Ireland, was something you just did not do

studiorat

probably a bad time to bring it up, but this aunt.

she single now I suppose?

marienbad

jank wrote: »

Ah, ya must keep up those mortgage payments for the McMansion, the 2 cars, Sky TV and the overseas holidays every year.... Ever wonder why two parents have to work now when families are a lot smaller, 20-30 years ago one income was able to cope in the vast majority of the situation. Don't let facts get in YOUR way of a rant. The idea of cutting your cloth to measure is alien to many!



Nice editing job there Mrs Marien. I said "Basically most people are idiots when it comes to thinking what they want out of life and good decision making."

Would be nice if you actually read what I type, not what you want me to type!

I do read what you type and it is all just meaningless insulting generalities- how do you know what those people are paying for ?

Did you by any chance live in the ireland of 30 years ago or 40 years ago ? I can tell you the utopia of one parent income was in most cases anything but- have a look at the rte programme ( reeling in the years I think) and you might get an idea what it was really like- bleak unhealthy impoverished - and I for one are glad to see the back of them. And if both people working to create a better life for themselves and their children who are you to gainsay it ?

jank

Onixx wrote: »

Jank, marriages could become unhappy fifty years ago just as they can today - it's just that it was more taboo to break up. People marry because they want to now, rather than being under pressure to do so because it's the done thing - if anything, that's more of a recipe for a happy marriage.
And people hardly have children knowing the relationship won't last - they don't have a crystal ball. Things change, people change, stuff that you'd least expect happens. Ending a marriage is hardly a step that's taken lightly or done without good reason or a lot of work to save it.
I'd prefer modern society to a closed, secretive one where people had to bottle up their misery and ended up medicating themselves with alcohol; where children of parents deemed unable to cope were just snatched and placed in institutions. That was the reality in Ireland up to not terribly long ago.
My own mother's parents would have been better off separating - he was a violent (never to his children, but to his wife) alcoholic, she was an extremely unhappy, bitter woman. My mum and her brother couldn't get out of there fast enough. But ending a marriage, especially in rural Ireland, was something you just did not do

The stats dont support the argument that because there is less pressure to marry means the marriage is more successful, its the opposite if any. Not saying there should be forced marriage or anything.

One problem of today is that some people have wild expectations. They watch episodes Friends or Sex and the City or some other Rom Com and expect real life to be like that. Then when their 5 year marriage doesn't turn out the way it does in some cheap movie they get unhappy and want to split. Fine if there are no kids involved but usually there is. 50 or 100 years ago most people realised life was tough and unforgiving. You would have made the best with what you have and get on with it, now a days everyone wants unbridled joy morning noon and night. They think everyone else is soooo happy but why arent they? Just look at the smiling pictures on facebook, everyone having a great time??

Again, most people dont have a clue with what they want out of life. No wonder so many end up unhappy and moan.

jank

marienbad wrote: »

I do read what you type and it is all just meaningless insulting generalities- how do you know what those people are paying for ?

Do you know? Just look at car ownership, TV ownership, all the extras like sky, mobiles, iphones, internet, holidays, etc.etc. Did they even exist 20 years ago? Now these arent luxury items they are deemed essential!!
Two parents work because they want those things, yet they probably hate their life. Its called the two income trap. Go figure! There is more to life then things. Namely your children

marienbad wrote: »

Did you by any chance live in the ireland of 30 years ago or 40 years ago ? I can tell you the utopia of one parent income was in most cases anything but- have a look at the rte programme ( reeling in the years I think) and you might get an idea what it was really like- bleak unhealthy impoverished - and I for one are glad to see the back of them. And if both people working to create a better life for themselves and their children who are you to gainsay it ?

Yes I did but I dont remember it being like 1840's like what you try and portray. impoverished? unhealthy? Are you on about 1980's Ethiopia by any chance?
If both people are working to create a better life for their children then fair play, however most of the time its a better life for themselves by buying crap they dont need. Does a 3 year old need a holiday to Spain? They wont even remember it! Were you even awake during the Celtic Tiger?

iguana

OP how is different from the almost identical thread you started 4 months ago?

The mature decision in a sexless marriage

grindle

iguana wrote: »

OP how is different from the almost identical thread you started 4 months ago?

The mature decision in a sexless marriage

Jaysis, whoever thanked that should be mortified!

marienbad

jank wrote: »

Do you know? Just look at car ownership, TV ownership, all the extras like sky, mobiles, iphones, internet, holidays, etc.etc. Did they even exist 20 years ago? Now these arent luxury items they are deemed essential!!
Two parents work because they want those things, yet they probably hate their life. Its called the two income trap. Go figure! There is more to life then things. Namely your children



Yes I did but I dont remember it being like 1840's like what you try and portray. impoverished? unhealthy? Are you on about 1980's Ethiopia by any chance?
If both people are working to create a better life for their children then fair play, however most of the time its a better life for themselves by buying crap they dont need. Does a 3 year old need a holiday to Spain? They wont even remember it! Were you even awake during the Celtic Tiger?

I don't need to know- I am not making judgements on their lifestyle , you are .

As for me describing the 1840's - now I know you are taking piss, even in the late 80's, we had poor health and dental care, tax rates in excess of 50%, high unemployment, emigration, limited 3rd level education, institutionalised child abuse, political corruption at every level, a who you know employment system , I could go on ... and on .

But what exactly is your point ? Are you saying we were better off back then or what ?

whatdoicare

I'm here in my sitting room and I'm getting surround sound of what happens when adults who shouldn't be together stay together from my neighbours - they scream at each other every time they are in the house together.
I feel sorry for the young fella that is caught in the middle of all this - he's only about twelve and he has to witness his parents screaming at each other and slamming doors. I can only imagine what damage that is doing to him - I don't even know these people and I'm finding it upsetting to hear it day in and day out.

Scanlas The 2nd

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

However I think it's a parent's responsibility to stay together for the children. Now I can already hear the rebuttal, a children are better off in single parent household than an unhappy two parent household.

Yes, children are better off living with one parent in the event that the parents break up. So, you're saying it's the parents' responsibility to create a poor environment for raising kids.

You haven't thought this through. Staying around your ex immediately after a break-up will mean that neither party will be able to move on, especially if you're living with them. What happens if either of them starts a relationship with someone else? Pain and more pain. What are the rules in such a situation? Can they bring their new partner into their home to meet the ex and the kid(s)? I can't see that ending well, but they have every right to do so if they co-own the property. Staying together for the sake of kids is, ironically, the worst thing parents could do.

Not only will it not be the happy family home you seem to imagine it being, but it deceives the child(ren) into believing that everything is fine. The reason why they can't live together happily for the sake of kids is because it just won't happen. What is true and what you think should be true are not always the same.

OP, you'll have a relationship someday where shlt doesn't work. Fuk your opinions till then.

ChaseThisLight

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

There's more to life than being with your perfect match, you don't need that to be happy.

How do you know this? Have you ever been in love with someone? Ever found your perfect match? Because I can tell you from experience, that sure, you don't have to have that to be happy, but it sure as hell is a lot more nicer to have that than to be be unhappy or even simply content with someone who isn't.

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

I wouldn't be happy in that situation either but you are selfish IMO when you put your own happiness ahead of your children's.

It's not selfish at all. Even if you aren't fighting daily, having screaming matches or the like, kids can tell if you're unhappy. You can try to hide it all you want, for as long as you can, but they can see it. And they in turn will be unhappy seeing this, and they might wind up blaming themselves if they find out you stayed together because of them.

Again if it means not having sex for the sake of your children's well being then that's what you should do. Just because you don't live your partner doesn't mean you can't have sex, also there is masturbation and the option of agreeing to extra marital sex.

I find it very sad that you believe this.

Also happiness isn't some constant variable. It fluctuates on a minute by minute basis.

Actually, it is a variable, because it fluctuates. That's why you might one day find yourself unhappy with the person you married and/or had children with. It's not a sudden spur of the moment thing...it's a gradual change. Because people change. I don't believe for a moment that just pushing your unhappiness aside will magically make you happy. Something as big as not being in love with your partner doesn't just go away.

up for anything

jank wrote: »

Why the **** have kids in a marriage if you are not sure that the ****ing thing will last a more than 3 years! Its not like you can give them up when it doesn't suit you!

I was with my husband for 31 years. We were together 16 years before the birth of our first child at which time we'd been married for 5 years. A sure thing you'd imagine?? The marriage lasted another 15 years before I was able to call a halt to it because he'd given me a concrete reason. Selfish of me not to have given it another 15 years because I wasn't mature enough. I think not.

Although he really wanted children he wasn't able to function comfortably with my divided attention. Without generalising I believe that that is the root reason a lot of marriages and relationships break down.

Turpentine

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

I think there are obviously situations where it's in a child's best interest that parents separate such as one parent being physically abusive to the other or the children.

However I think it's a parent's responsibility to stay together for the children. Now I can already hear the rebuttal, a children are better off in single parent household than an unhappy two parent household. I don't see why two mature adults can't stay together for their children and live in a happy household despite there reasons for breaking up. Assuming those reasons aren't extreme.

My aunt broke up with my uncle because she wasn't "in love" with him but she still "loved" him apparently. So she left and lived in an apartment for a year or so. I just think not being "in love" is a ridiculous reason not to stay living at home for your children. Really selfish. There should be no reason why two mature adults who aren't in love can't live happily together in the same house.

Between this and your "When I grow up will I be considered middle-aged at 30" thread it would appear you lack both experience and common sense.

May god have mercy on any future partner you may have. I can imagine it now: "You ain't leaving me, we're bringing the kids for ice-cream and you're going to like it."

jank

marienbad wrote: »

I don't need to know- I am not making judgements on their lifestyle , you are .

But you are as well by giving everyone the benefit of the doubt.

marienbad wrote: »

As for me describing the 1840's - now I know you are taking piss, even in the late 80's, we had poor health and dental care, tax rates in excess of 50%, high unemployment, emigration, limited 3rd level education, institutionalised child abuse, political corruption at every level, a who you know employment system , I could go on ... and on .

What you describe above is Ireland now tbh.

marienbad wrote: »

But what exactly is your point ? Are you saying we were better off back then or what ?

My point is that people more so now a days abdicate all responsibility when it comes to personal choices.

Rynox45

It would only be a matter of time before the child figured it out. After they do they could feel it's their fault or something like that.

Other than in situations where finances are stretched thing it's better to split up when necessary.

yizorselves

Didnt blink 182 have a song about this?

Yeah that song was a loada me ballix

Kirby

danslevent wrote: »

. rather than being left with the feeling of quilt that they are only together for me and my sisters.

From the sounds of it, the quilt was all they were feeling

Cat Melodeon

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Cat Melodeon wrote: »

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

What is a poor quality marriage? Depending on the definition the research could be completely in line with my beliefs.

Ah well, I can't argue with a belief, no matter what research I produce.

Yes you can, you can argue that my belief is wrong through reasoning and research.

No, I can argue and debate with opinions. If this was just your opinion then I would produce more of the (extensive) research which disproves your assertions, knowing that you would consider said evidence and potentially amend your judgement. However, as you are arguing based on your beliefs, there is no point engaging further. Beliefs are based on emotional responses to your personal experiences, environment, social context and intrinsic psychological state. Beliefs are not based on fact or rational thought. One cannot reason with a belief.

steddyeddy

Well whatever happens a couple should put their childrens needs first at all times. If the relationship is abusive then the mother/fater should get out for the sake of the kids. People in relationships are often selfish breaking up when theirs kids involved though imo.

Mam of 4

My daughter is now 20 but remembers the arguing and the horrible comments from when her dad and i were still married,she was 7 when we split up.We thought the kids knew nothing,dumb eh?Staying together for the sake of the kids can sometimes make a bad situation worse imo,did here anyway.One positive,we all have great relationship with kids dad now we don't live together,don't think there's a right or a wrong answer to this,every situation is different..

dj jarvis

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Why would you assume they're miserable?

There's more to life than being with your perfect match, you don't need that to be happy.

sorry ???? but run that one past me again !!!

if you believe that statement i feel sorry for you - the PRIME OBJECTIVE in life is to be as happy and content as possible, to your own level of happiness granted, but none the less happy

jesus h christ what is the point if your not enjoying it ?

marienbad

jank wrote: »

But you are as well by giving everyone the benefit of the doubt.



What you describe above is Ireland now tbh.



My point is that people more so now a days abdicate all responsibility when it comes to personal choices.

I am not making any judgement or giving anyone the benefit of the doubt, I just have no opinion on how total strangers spend their money and rear their their families - you do.

And if you think what I describe is the Ireland of today I can only assume that you never lived in the Ireland of the 60's,70's and 80's or if you did you lived a very protected existance. Even in this most difficult of times it is light years ahead of where we were in those days and any index you care to consult will show you that.

As for people nowadays abdicating responsibility, you could'nt be more incorrect - the last 20 years are the generations that have forced accountability on the church the politicians etc and improved every aspect of Irish life.

This harking back to some golden age in the past is just rubbish, it was a national cover up in every aspect of life - particularly for women and children .