Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Parents breaking up. Is it selfish or immature.

135

Comments

  • #62
    Cat Melodeon
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,617 ✭✭✭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.


  • #63
    Ave Sodalis
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,555 ✭✭✭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...


  • #64
    Scanlas The 2nd
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,144 ✭✭✭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?


  • #65
    Scanlas The 2nd
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,144 ✭✭✭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.


  • #66
    Cat Melodeon
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,617 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    marienbad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭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 ?


  • #68
    Mr Benevolent
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,433 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #69
    up for anything
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,791 ✭✭✭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.


  • #70
    Scanlas The 2nd
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,144 ✭✭✭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.


  • #71
    Scanlas The 2nd
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,144 ✭✭✭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


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    up for anything
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,791 ✭✭✭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. :D

    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.


  • #73
    Pherekydes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 16,339 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #74
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,016 ✭✭✭✭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!


  • #75
    marienbad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭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.


  • #76
    starviewadams
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,116 ✭✭✭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.


  • #77
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,016 ✭✭✭✭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!


  • #78
    Kooli
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,312 ✭✭✭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...


  • #79
    Madam_X
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,327 ✭✭✭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


  • #80
    studiorat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,408 ✭✭✭studiorat


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

    she single now I suppose?


  • #81
    marienbad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭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 ?


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,016 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #83
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,016 ✭✭✭✭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?


  • #84
    iguana
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,909 ✭✭✭✭iguana


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

    The mature decision in a sexless marriage


  • #85
    grindle
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,025 ✭✭✭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!


  • #86
    marienbad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭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 ?


  • #87
    whatdoicare
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,398 ✭✭✭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.


  • #88
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 758 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    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.


  • #89
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 18,046 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


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


  • #90
    ChaseThisLight
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 495 ✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • #91
    up for anything
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,791 ✭✭✭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.


Advertisement
Advertisement