Parents breaking up. Is it selfish or immature.

Scanlas The 2nd

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.

Samich

Well if you're staying together for the sake of the child you'll just have 2 unhappy parents, and that isn't good.

I think it's stupid to stay together with someone just for the sake of the children when it's not even necessarily a good thing in the first place

It's neither immature nor selfish and I find the entire question a bit boggling

Melion

I'm not with the mother of my child anymore. It doesn't make any sense for 2 people to stay together and be miserable to create the impression of a happy home for the child. They'll hear the arguing.
And what happens when the child grows up and leaves the house? Should the parents still stay together.

Dont have kids. Simples there, all solved now.

Fupping Grasshole

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

My aunt broke up with my uncle

A_Sober_Paddy

Don't feed the trolls

Tombi!

Depends.

I think it's better to split up and be at least civil to one another then stay together for the "child" and end up hating each other and making it worse for the child.

SEPT 23 1989

Children pick up on everything,it would do terrible damage to a child to be brought up in a bad atmosphere

geeky

Jaysus no. As previous posters have said, two unhappy parents = miserable kid. They cotton on to interpersonal stuff far more than we give them credit for, and form their views on what's normal based on their parents' relationship. In that context, a loveless marriage is usually damaging.

Harry Enfield of all people did a running sketch in response to the 'stay together for the kids' crowd, of a couple who clearly despised each other but were together for their son - who just wanted them to get divorced. Can't watch his shows, but he made a good point.

Yeah, some people who cut and run at the first sign of trouble clearly weren't mature enough to settle down in the first place. But people shouldn't be with a partner who makes them unhappy.

garv123

Have you lived with two parents arguing and shouting and roaring every evening for the night as soon as they come home from work?

Things are much better when they separate..

Plus you get double the amount of xmas presents off them.

Corkfeen

Children are perfectly capable of picking up on tension in a home so it's not really very beneficial for them to live in a home where they know that their parents are not in any way happy with their relationship. The negatives outweigh any positive aspects.

danslevent

I don't think it is selfish at all. My parents are still married but for as long as I can remember they slept in separate beds and I never saw any kind of love between them. I would have preferred for them to have a divorce, I even said it as a kid. It is more damaging to grow up in a house where there isn't any love. I used to think all families were like that and all marriages were void of love. It would have been much healthier to see my parents in actual loving relationships, rather than being left with the feeling of quilt that they are only together for me and my sisters.

mauzo

I tried that, convinced myself it was better to stay with a physically abusive person for the sake of our son. Didn't have the mental strength to leave either.

Children pick up on everything, you can convince yourself its in their best interest but its not at all.

Happy parents = happy children

antodeco

Fupping Grasshole wrote: »

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

My aunt broke up with my uncle

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

Scanlas The 2nd

Melion wrote: »

I'm not with the mother of my child anymore. It doesn't make any sense for 2 people to stay together and be miserable to create the impression of a happy home for the child. They'll hear the arguing.
And what happens when the child grows up and leaves the house? Should the parents still stay together.

I'm talking about mature parents, mature parents don't continually argue.

Scanlas The 2nd

geeky wrote: »

Jaysus no. As previous posters have said, two unhappy parents = miserable kid. They cotton on to interpersonal stuff far more than we give them credit for, and form their views on what's normal based on their parents' relationship. In that context, a loveless marriage is usually damaging.

Harry Enfield of all people did a running sketch in response to the 'stay together for the kids' crowd, of a couple who clearly despised each other but were together for their son - who just wanted them to get divorced. Can't watch his shows, but he made a good point.

Yeah, some people who cut and run at the first sign of trouble clearly weren't mature enough to settle down in the first place. But people shouldn't be with a partner who makes them unhappy.

Why are you assuming two parents who don't want to be in a relationship would be unhappy. Flatmates aren't all unhappy.

I think using the line " two unhappy parents is worse" is often a convenient rationalisation to put your own interests ahead of your children.

starbelgrade

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

I'm talking about mature parents, mature parents don't continually argue.

Funnily enough, that strikes me as a very immature thing to say.

Scanlas The 2nd

starbelgrade wrote: »

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

I'm talking about mature parents, mature parents don't continually argue.

Funnily enough, that strikes me as a very immature thing to say.

It strikes me as true, petit arguing is for emotionally unstable individuals. If you have your differences you negotiate while controlling your emotions and staying calm like a mature adult should be able to, especially in the interest of your children.

Cú Giobach

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

It strikes me as true, petit arguing is for emotionally unstable individuals. If you have your differences you negotiate while controlling your emotions and staying calm like a mature adult should be able to, especially in the interest of your children.

That is a grand ideal, but as with many "ideals" it doesn't take into account the reality of human nature.

grindle

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Flatmates aren't all unhappy.

Not all flatmates have loved eachother, had a child, gotten married, then stopped loving eachother.
Anyway, all flatmates that can't stand living with eachother are unhappy. All of them.

As for the selfish thing, it is, but it's a good selfishness that leads to a positive outcome for the child. Not all selfishness is bad.
Without it you wouldn't have a job, or meet people you like as opposed to people you don't.

Bad Panda

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

It strikes me as true, petit arguing is for emotionally unstable individuals. If you have your differences you negotiate while controlling your emotions and staying calm like a mature adult should be able to, especially in the interest of your children.

You're asking people to downplay their emotions - the thing that makes us people (!) in order to negotiate and show no feeling like robots.

My parents fought a lot (not physically) and split up. I was fine with it, because even at 12 it made sense; they weren't getting on. I'd a great childhood. And they've always gone on since.

Also, the view that any two people can maintain never arguing is quite frankly stupid and idealistic to the extreme.

My 2c.

Thomas20

Couldn't disagree anymore with you OP

Thomas20

Thomas20 wrote: »

Couldn't disagree anymore with you OP

You've changed to his point of view on so little?

Scanlas The 2nd

Bad Panda wrote: »

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

It strikes me as true, petit arguing is for emotionally unstable individuals. If you have your differences you negotiate while controlling your emotions and staying calm like a mature adult should be able to, especially in the interest of your children.

You're asking people to downplay their emotions - the thing that makes us people (!) in order to negotiate and show no feeling like robots.

My parents fought a lot (not physically) and split up. I was fine with it, because even at 12 it made sense; they weren't getting on. I'd a great childhood. And they've always gone on since.

Also, the view that any two people can maintain never arguing is quite frankly stupid and idealistic to the extreme.

My 2c.

When you are immature emotionally IMO your emotions are volatile and control you. So in that instance the parents should break up. You can feel emotions without being overwhelmed by them, many do.

Kimia

I think that if both parents are unhappy then they should break up. Just because you're a parent does not mean that your entire life is not your own anymore - you're still an individual person.

I think it's also really important for the parents to agree visitation and access. There is nothing worse for a child than for one of their parents to just disappear. This can lead to severe abandonment issues and depression.

So I think if the parents do split up, they should ensure to keep the child or children informed at all times by reassuring them that it's not their fault. Children are very self-centered up to a certain age and will internalize everything - they will blame themselves for daddy/mammy not being around, so it's important to constantly reassure.

kincsem

We broke up because it was best for the children. Clever.

Scanlas The 2nd

If one parent wasn't happy because of their job and there was an opportunity to go for a job that would make them happy in a foreign country leaving behind their family, Should they take that job or stay in the job they don't like for their children?

By the logic I've been reading on this thread I'd assume many here think the parent should work abroad away fro their family for their happiness. After all unhappy parents aren't good for children.

amacca

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

When you are immature emotionally IMO your emotions are volatile and control you.

Will I ever be mature?.........................I'm getting angry, why cant I be mature ffs:mad:

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

You can feel emotions without being overwhelmed by them, many do.

Not all the time...if you are human then something will get to you eventually and probably frequently no matter how mature you are spock

while sacrifices have to be made and compromises reached expecting a couple that just will not see eye to eye to control their emotions while sharing a living space for the the lifetime of a child just isn't feasible.....they will crack no matter how mature they are.......in fact forcing a situation like that may lead to a bigger more serious breakdown than if they could argue etc

fishy fishy

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.

it's the difference between "living" and "existing" . It's the 21st century - why should people live in misery.

grindle

kincsem wrote: »

We broke up because it was best for the children. Clever.

We stayed together and fought every night, while the children went to sleep to a screaming, shouting, objects breaking against the wall-style lullaby - because it was best for the children.
Clever.

Bannasidhe

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

I'm talking about mature parents, mature parents don't continually argue.

My parent's separated after 25 years of marriage weeks after my 18th birthday so I think they would qualify as mature parents. My mother told me in no uncertain terms that she had remained with my abusive, alcoholic father for 'my sake' - I am the youngest of 3.

Gee thanks Mam, for deciding it was better for me to grow in a house where we dreaded the sound of the gate opening sometime after the pubs closed as we never knew who was going to be the focus of my father's abuse that night - even the dog used to hide - and my brother (now in his mid-50s) talks about how the sound of a metal gate opening at night still causes him to wake up in a cold sweat.

The happiest time we had as kids was when my father lived in the US for 4 years - when he came back our childhoods ended - I was 7 years old.

How could it possibly have been in the best interests of my siblings and I to be subjected to nightly verbal and physical abuse, see our mother abused and bullied to the extent that she getting whacked out on Valium was her only way to cope as she and her children lived at the mercy of a bully from whom there was no place to hide?

Shane-KornSpace

I grew up in a household with two unhappy parents. They were so unhappy that they beat the piss out of eachother on several occasions and quite a few times, some anger was taken out on me.
Had they just broken up when they started having issues, my life would have worked out alot better and their's would have too.
They stayed together which was the selfish option in this case. They were too weak to admit they couldnt be together. Theyn thought they were doing it for me, but they werent. And I expect this is the case with so many other couples.

A child should never be between argueing parents and said child should never be used as a weapon to hurt each others' feelings.

If their relationship is badly strained - end it. before its too late. it will be tough at first, but much better in the long run.

Giselle

Bannasidhe wrote: »

My parent's separated after 25 years of marriage weeks after my 18th birthday so I think they would qualify as mature parents. My mother told me in no uncertain terms that she had remained with my abusive, alcoholic father for 'my sake' - I am the youngest of 3.

Gee thanks Mam, for deciding it was better for me to grow in a house where we dreaded the sound of the gate opening sometime after the pubs closed as we never knew who was going to be the focus of my father's abuse that night - even the dog used to hide - and my brother (now in his mid-50s) talks about how the sound of a metal gate opening at night still causes him to wake up in a cold sweat.

The happiest time we had as kids was when my father lived in the US for 4 years - when he came back our childhoods ended - I was 7 years old.

How could it possibly have been in the best interests of my siblings and I to be subjected to nightly verbal and physical abuse, see our mother abused and bullied to the extent that she getting whacked out on Valium was her only way to cope as she and her children lived at the mercy of a bully from whom there was no place to hide?

People like the OP start threads to confirm their view of the world and to validate their bias.

Real life experiences to the contrary, like yours, will do nothing to change their view because its a black and white worldview they have. Almost everything in life is a shade of grey, something most of us understand.

I'm very sorry you experienced that childhood. I don't think any sensible person would suggest that parents are required to stay together under those circumstances.

If you don't mind my saying so, your mother was very cowardly to say she stayed with your father for you and your siblings. She absolved herself of all responsibility for exposing you to that horror in doing so, and made her children responsible instead.

stovelid

I dunno, Scanlas. I'm going to have to give this one some thought after I've clipped my toenails.

Scanlas The 2nd

fishy fishy wrote: »

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.

it's the difference between "living" and "existing" . It's the 21st century - why should people live in misery.

What does the date have to do with it?

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

grindle wrote: »

kincsem wrote: »

We broke up because it was best for the children. Clever.

We stayed together and fought every night, while the children went to sleep to a screaming, shouting, objects breaking against the wall-style lullaby - because it was best for the children.
Clever.

Any parent like that shouldn't have children in the first place, that's insanity, they need to see a counsellor ASAP.

Scanlas The 2nd

Giselle wrote: »

Bannasidhe wrote: »

My parent's separated after 25 years of marriage weeks after my 18th birthday so I think they would qualify as mature parents. My mother told me in no uncertain terms that she had remained with my abusive, alcoholic father for 'my sake' - I am the youngest of 3.

Gee thanks Mam, for deciding it was better for me to grow in a house where we dreaded the sound of the gate opening sometime after the pubs closed as we never knew who was going to be the focus of my father's abuse that night - even the dog used to hide - and my brother (now in his mid-50s) talks about how the sound of a metal gate opening at night still causes him to wake up in a cold sweat.

The happiest time we had as kids was when my father lived in the US for 4 years - when he came back our childhoods ended - I was 7 years old.

How could it possibly have been in the best interests of my siblings and I to be subjected to nightly verbal and physical abuse, see our mother abused and bullied to the extent that she getting whacked out on Valium was her only way to cope as she and her children lived at the mercy of a bully from whom there was no place to hide?

People like the OP start threads to confirm their view of the world and to validate their bias.

Real life experiences to the contrary, like yours, will do nothing to change their view because its a black and white worldview they have. Almost everything in life is a shade of grey, something most of us understand.

I'm very sorry you experienced that childhood. I don't think any sensible person would suggest that parents are required to stay together under those circumstances.

If you don't mind my saying so, your mother was very cowardly to say she stayed with your father for you and your siblings. She absolved herself of all responsibility for exposing you to that horror in doing so, and made her children responsible instead.

What is black and white about my argument?

I think people are far too quick to use the " unhappy parents are worse line" because they are inconvenienced. I stated that from the beginning, hardly black and white.

Any household with violence and constant arguing needs to split up. They weren't mature enough to have children in the first place, that crap ruins children lives. I'd guess that there are many households in Ireland where the parents aren't really in love, they'd both prefer to be with different people but it makes no difference to the children as they get on well.

SocSocPol

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Any parent like that shouldn't have children in the first place, that's insanity, they need to see a counsellor ASAP.

Only a very narrow minded person could agree with that!
When my and my ex seperated it was for the best, including the best fot our kids.
But I wouldn't expect the pr department of Opus Dei to understand that:pac:

krudler

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.

thats retarded. people should just be miserable for the sake of their children?

Cat Melodeon

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

If one parent wasn't happy because of their job and there was an opportunity to go for a job that would make them happy in a foreign country leaving behind their family, Should they take that job or stay in the job they don't like for their children?

By the logic I've been reading on this thread I'd assume many here think the parent should work abroad away fro their family for their happiness. After all unhappy parents aren't good for children.

That's a bad analogy. If someone were happier being away from their family that would suggest that they weren't very happy living with their family in the first place. My husband and I both know he would be happier working abroad as there are better job prospects for him there. However, in terms of all the things that make him happy in life, job satisfaction ranks fairly low when you consider how miserable we would be separated and how traumatic it would be for our kids going from a very happy family to a broken up family without warning or reason other than 'Daddy wants a new job'. So he is 'sacrificing' the potential for greater job satisfaction for the greater good of us all being happy together. Job satisfaction isn't really a 'happiness' in any case, it's what you do to pay the bills.

Parents who deal with relationship break-ups responsibly ensure that whatever hurt and disappointments they experience are not dumped on their kids. They share access fairly, ensure their children are loved and do their best to provide them with stability. Stability does not necessitate both parents living under the one roof. Separated parents deserve the freedom to find new love. As long as they continue to love their children and to parent responsibly, there is no reason why they should have to stay together. That's like a prison sentence, forced to remain with someone you no longer love (and possibly even hate/fear/dislike) and is no environment for children to grow up in. They would learn to deny their feelings, suppress emotions and be dishonest about their desires. Not a healthy upbringing.

Scanlas The 2nd

krudler wrote: »

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.

thats retarded. people should just be miserable for the sake of their children?

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.

krudler

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.

why would anyone stay in a situation where they're not happy? "dont love your husband? well tough you gotta stay together" thats ridiculous. many a family has been made infinitely better by separated parents.

Shane-KornSpace

Sorry, OP.
But no. just no.

if a couple are not happy with being together, they should end it. It will be hard on the child at first, but theyll get over it quickly. Trust me. My sister got over it quickly. As long as the child can see both parents regularly, it will be fine.

They child will understand when they grow up and will respect their parents for not bringing them up in a home where the parents destained eachother.

hooradiation

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

My aunt broke up with my uncle

It's ok.
One day, when you're older, you'll understand.

Scanlas The 2nd

Cat Melodeon wrote: »

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

If one parent wasn't happy because of their job and there was an opportunity to go for a job that would make them happy in a foreign country leaving behind their family, Should they take that job or stay in the job they don't like for their children?

By the logic I've been reading on this thread I'd assume many here think the parent should work abroad away fro their family for their happiness. After all unhappy parents aren't good for children.

That's a bad analogy. If someone were happier being away from their family that would suggest that they weren't very happy living with their family in the first place. My husband and I both know he would be happier working abroad as there are better job prospects for him there. However, in terms of all the things that make him happy in life, job satisfaction ranks fairly low when you consider how miserable we would be separated and how traumatic it would be for our kids going from a very happy family to a broken up family without warning or reason other than 'Daddy wants a new job'. So he is 'sacrificing' the potential for greater job satisfaction for the greater good of us all being happy together. Job satisfaction isn't really a 'happiness' in any case, it's what you do to pay the bills.

Parents who deal with relationship break-ups responsibly ensure that whatever hurt and disappointments they experience are not dumped on their kids. They share access fairly, ensure their children are loved and do their best to provide them with stability. Stability does not necessitate both parents living under the one roof. Separated parents deserve the freedom to find new love. As long as they continue to love their children and to parent responsibly, there is no reason why they should have to stay together. That's like a prison sentence, forced to remain with someone you no longer love (and possibly even hate/fear/dislike) and is no environment for children to grow up in. They would learn to deny their feelings, suppress emotions and be dishonest about their desires. Not a healthy upbringing.

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?

CodyJarrett

If they break up just so that the father can go play on his bmx all day and the mom with her skipping rope, then yes.

Scanlas The 2nd

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

I'm talking about mature parents, mature parents don't continually argue.

My parent's separated after 25 years of marriage weeks after my 18th birthday so I think they would qualify as mature parents. My mother told me in no uncertain terms that she had remained with my abusive, alcoholic father for 'my sake' - I am the youngest of 3.

Gee thanks Mam, for deciding it was better for me to grow in a house where we dreaded the sound of the gate opening sometime after the pubs closed as we never knew who was going to be the focus of my father's abuse that night - even the dog used to hide - and my brother (now in his mid-50s) talks about how the sound of a metal gate opening at night still causes him to wake up in a cold sweat.

The happiest time we had as kids was when my father lived in the US for 4 years - when he came back our childhoods ended - I was 7 years old.

How could it possibly have been in the best interests of my siblings and I to be subjected to nightly verbal and physical abuse, see our mother abused and bullied to the extent that she getting whacked out on Valium was her only way to cope as she and her children lived at the mercy of a bully from whom there was no place to hide?

I agree that you were better off if you're parents split up, my original posts states abusive parents need to split up.

holystungun9

Jake1 wrote: »

Dont have kids. Simples there, all solved now.

The most compelling reason for anal adventure! "Baby, just give it a go! Trust me I'm the last person you want to risk having kids with. I'm so dumb when my last girlfriend suggested doggy-style, I went out the back and started licking my balls!"

Shane-KornSpace

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Their parents relationship situation is their own business.

Wrong.
The child will be affected some way or another. It is the childs business to an extent.

fearcruach

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.