Why is Divorce preferable to adultery?

Yes, divorce is better than adultery.

Why? Because kids are not stupid. They know when mom and dad aren't happy. And living with someone you don't love anymore, or for that matter, even respect is not sending the right message to your kids. Parents who fight have a much worse influence on their kids well-being than getting an amicable divorce.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

You are mixing two separate issues. You can a perfectly good father or mother for your kids while being unfaithful to your spouse. They are not directly linked.

The things that matter to kids are being a good provider, a protector, teacher and caregiver. None of these things have anything to do with your sex life. As long as my father was providing for our needs, spending time with us and doing the things that a good father does, why should I care if he has a mistress?

I think EhBeth already pretty much hit on my response. You can be a perfectly good father without being married so why stay in a marriage and cheat? I argue that it is a lot more difficult to be a good father while refusing to honor your commitment to your wife than it is if you are honoring that commitment. If you want to be a good father and sleep around, better to do that outside marriage. That said, as Ossobuco pointed out, this is a very cultural thing. There are plenty of cultures that condone multiple spouses.

1 Reply

You know, I'm not sure how much the supposition of Puritanical notions of our voiced (if not acted upon) commitment to monogamy holds water. If anything, we may have internalized more the romantic notion of the soul mate, that two partners are ideally, (super)naturally suited to each other.

Of course, both cultural heritages could be at play at the same time, and others as well. My step-nephew, fer instance, is a convert to Islam in an essentially arranged marriage, and there is an expectation of fidelity there that falls quite outside the usual European intellectual lineage.

0 Replies

@ehBeth,

ehBeth wrote:

"Staying in it for the kids" seems to be lousy for the kids.

Im going to be shot for this.. but when I hear people say that they are " in it for the kids" I sometimes think they are just to scared to leave, too insecure to DO something or dont really give a hell about themselves enough to mak ea change in their life. And it is almost like using the kids for a scapegoat.
Well, i dont have to - get a lawyer, pay support, divide stuff, be single, move..etc..etc. if I just dont DO anything. So hey, lets stay together for the kids .

I know this isnt true for everyone. But that is one of the things I think of when I hear that..

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

It is as if society is setting marriage up to fail.

society is setting marriage up in the confines of a religious outline.
Religion does not equal morals, nor is it a good outline for how people should behave.

Only in christian religions is it not ok to divorce, not ok to use b/c and not ok to cheat. There are other religions that follow suit but in this country christianity is prominent so im using that for an example.

0 Replies

If you are a woman do you want to go through all that time and effort to start raising kids only to have him walk off half way through for a younger woman ?

If you are man, do you want to protect some woman who is getting you to raise someone else's kids ?

Having sex is not "just sex" . That is what women say who have fucked too many losers....it is their way of recovering their self esteem . Men are born with the attitude of spray sperm every where, some will take . For women to think they can be men is stupid . Marriage is a woman's institution and they are dismantling it with divorce laws and laws that protect women outside of marriage . It seems women now want protection even outside of marriage . This will lead to more damaged children and more psychotic bitches wondering where their lives went wrong.... it seemed like such a good idea... **** like men and no consequences . After all, two different things must be equal .

0 Replies

@engineer,

Quote:

refusing to honor your commitment

Isn't divorce an example of "refusing to honor your commitment"? Sure infidelity is also an example of "refusing to honor your commitment".

The difference is that divorce breaks up a family. There is no question that this will affect the kids. Your sex life is between you and your spouse and doesn't affect the kids.

1 Reply

@shewolfnm,

Quote:

Im going to be shot for this.. but when I hear people say that they are " in it for the kids"

I am not going to shoot you. But I am going to disagree.

Consider when you and your spouse are no longer have the desire or the passion to be exclusive. This is the business of you and your spouse. It certainly isn't your kids fault, why should they pay the price?

Yes, there are lots of factors involved and every situation is different and for some families this wouldn't work-- but couldn't you accept a situation where it would be better for the kids if you stayed together. And if this were the case, and you could work out an arrangement, wouldn't it be a good thing to put the needs of the kids first?

I sure could.

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

Is it in the best interest of the kids to see an unloving couple have sex with everyone ? Is that the best example of how they should lead their lives ? I know of many couples who swapped, were swingers, or whatever oyu want to call them.... in most instances the kids find out pretty quickly . In most instances they end up divorced, a lot of the time taking off with someone they "fell in love with" whilst ******* them .

If you cant control your crutch why get married ? Why have kids if you are to drag them through divorce and seeing mummy in bed with someone not daddy ? Is it because everyone gets married and people dont want to be left out ?

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Yes, there are lots of factors involved and every situation is different and for some families this wouldn't work-- but couldn't you accept a situation where it would be better for the kids if you stayed together. And if this were the case, and you could work out an arrangement, wouldn't it be a good thing to put the needs of the kids first?

I sure could.

absolutely.
And I am doing just that to a certain extent.

we have not divorced because it would change the type of health insurance our daughter would get. Yet we have been apart a very long time and moving on. There is no going back, it is over except on paper because it would affect her
Not the same boat as you are describing but a version of " staying together for kids"

I do get it. I have seen people do it both in a good way and in the horrible, I just dont want to leave , super damaging way.

I just cant help it though. There is almost nothing that i can think of beyond terminal illness that would constitute I stay in my past relationships. But I do realize.....that is just me..

0 Replies

@shewolfnm,

shewolfnm wrote:

ehBeth wrote:

"Staying in it for the kids" seems to be lousy for the kids.

Im going to be shot for this.. but when I hear people say that they are " in it for the kids" I sometimes think they are just to scared to leave, too insecure to DO something or dont really give a hell about themselves enough to mak ea change in their life. And it is almost like using the kids for a scapegoat.
Well, i dont have to - get a lawyer, pay support, divide stuff, be single, move..etc..etc. if I just dont DO anything. So hey, lets stay together for the kids .

I know this isnt true for everyone. But that is one of the things I think of when I hear that..

Beth, do you have research to back that up? That staying in it is lousy for the kids? I would have agreed with you until recently...especially having been brought up in the wreckage of a terrible marriage....there has been a large longitudinal study in Australia which is pretty gloomy about the effects of breaking up, too. The effects seem to be pretty serious.

That meshes with the kids I see, too......almost all of them seem desperate for their parents to get together again, and deeply sad about the split, in quite a pervasive way....for years and years.

Of course, they are mediated by how well the adults handle the split, and how much of a parent each is able to be afterwards.

However, it has caused me to rethink my position on this from a pretty much "it HAS to be better to separate if you are not happy" one, to a 'could it work to remaining a parental unit even when the marriage is not real any more for a few years until the kids are more independent" one.

Of course that would exclude violent and abusive relationships...the recent research on the neurobiology of the effects of THAT on the kids is pretty damned scary....not to mention adults have the right to be free of abuse as well as kids!

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

Are you insane?

It doesn't affect them directly. But people talk. And kids hear. And they know when mom and dad aren't happy.

0 Replies

Divorce can often be "no fault." The people involved got married too young and evolved in different directions; ONE of them messed up, the other one is just dealing with that; jobs took them in different geographical locations and they couldn't keep up a long-distance relationship; etc.

It's a much broader category than adultery, in which someone is at fault by definition. If not, it wouldn't be adultery, it would be an open marriage.

I disapprove of adultery but have no problem with open marriages. Whatever works for a given couple.

(In re-reading, I see ehBeth said something similar re: honesty.)

And yes, I agree with dlowan that current research seems to be that except for in the most extreme circumstances, staying together actually is easier on the kids than splitting. Of course either of those options are not good -- an unhappy home with unhappy parents, or divorced parents. It's more about how hard the splitting really is on the kids than whether the kids can tune out parental unhappiness.

2 Replies

@sozobe,

sozobe wrote:

And yes, I agree with dlowan that current research seems to be that except for in the most extreme circumstances, staying together actually is easier on the kids than splitting.

just asking constant questions here...

but in those 'surveys' who is answering the questions? the adults who think they see things going well? Or the little children who have yet to really have the ability to verbalize such an adult experience? And how is it being measured , the outcome.. know what i mean? Just looking for kids to not have large emotional problems, or ..eh? Does that pondering make sense?

1 Reply

@shewolfnm,

Here's one thing I found in a quick search, I'm sure there's more conclusive stuff out there -- but I'm talking about research/ studies, not surveys.

Quote:

Young children of divorce are not only more likely to suffer from anxiety, loneliness, low self-esteem and sadness, they experience long-lasting setbacks in interpersonal skills and math test scores, new research suggests.

Children do not fall behind their peers in these areas during the potentially disruptive period before their parents divorce, the study revealed. Instead, it's after the split that kids seem to have the most trouble coping.

"Somewhat surprisingly, children of divorce do not experience detrimental setbacks in the pre-divorce period," noted study author Hyun Sik Kim, a doctoral candidate in the department of sociology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. "From the divorce stage onward, however, children of divorce lag behind in math test scores and interpersonal social skills."
"Children of divorce also show enhanced risk of internalizing problem behaviors characterized by anxiety, loneliness, low self-esteem and sadness," Kim said.

While the negative impacts do not continue to worsen several years after the divorce, "there is no sign that children of divorce catch up with their counterparts, either," he added.

The study is published in the June issue of the American Sociological Review.

http://yourlife.usatoday.com/sex-relationships/divorce/story/2011/06/Divorce-can-hurt-kids-math-scores-friendships/48019636/1

1 Reply

@sozobe,

sozobe wrote:

but I'm talking about research/ studies, not surveys.

Ok.
that is where I misunderstood. I took your statement to mean really just passing glances and small conversations with kids and families , not long term studies.

But yes, I agree with the studies too. I can see it in my own home. 2 years into it, the stress and questions are still there only now more grown up than before and much more of a pattern of long term life thoughts now where as before they were more 'simple' as in who lives where.

0 Replies

I'm not saying, btw, that children of divorce are doomed. I'm one, and while it was excruciating for me and had definite effects, I got over it.

Just, the conventional wisdom for a while has been that children are better off when their unhappy parents get a divorce, and that conventional wisdom is being pretty thoroughly challenged by the research I've seen in the last several years. Whether they are worse off when their parents divorce or whether it's essentially neutral, research does not seem to support that they're better off. (Except, again, in extreme situations such when there is abuse.)

1 Reply

@dlowan,

dlowan wrote:

ehBeth wrote:

"Staying in it for the kids" seems to be lousy for the kids.

Beth, do you have research to back that up? That staying in it is lousy for the kids?

there's been quite a bit of recent research in this area ( google is our friend - 40,000,000+ hits on "children + parental conflict + outcomes" on google.ca)

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090529212600.htm

Quote:

"Our findings suggest that exposure to parental conflict in adolescence is associated with poorer academic achievement, increased substance use and early family formation and dissolution, often in ways indistinguishable from living in a stepfather or single-mother family," said Kelly Musick, Cornell associate professor of policy analysis and management.

Musick is the lead author of a study that looked at how teenagers in 1,963 households in the National Survey of Families and Households fared from their teens to early 30s. She compared those who lived with married parents who often fought with those living in stepfather or single-mother households. Musick and co-author Ann Meier of the University of Minnesota looked at such outcomes as school success, substance abuse and childbearing out of wedlock.

<snip>

Quote:

The bottom line, she said, is that children in high-conflict married households tend to do no better than those in stepfather and single-mother families. How well parents manage their anger and conflict is obviously important for the outcomes of children, but, she stressed, policy initiatives that promote marriage "need to take account of how variation within marriage relates to child well-being."

The study was funded by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and the National Institutes of Health Office of Behavioral and Social Sciences.

*The full report, "Are Both Parents Always Better Than One? Parental Conflict and Young Adult Well-Being," is available as a PDF.

0 Replies

@dlowan,

I'm finding quite a few references to a Hunt, J. and Trinder, L. (2011 ) report for the Family Justice Council (U.K.)

Looks like some of their very recent report is excerpted in a Family Justice Review book available on Google Books and through a download at

http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/publications/policy/moj/family-justice-review-interim-rep.pdf

0 Replies

@sozobe,

Agreed. If it is a case of physical and emotional safety, better off is a perfect term and completely defines the situation.

To derail just a tad..

In my opinion only, kids are better off ( again saying this loosely) when parents can realize and move on when a relationship is not working for both parties than when they choose to stay for kids sake. ( no this does not include all reasonable arrangements)

Why?

because the kids then learn that it is ok to stay in a life / situation/ relationship / job etc, when they are not getting what you need and are having to ignore what you want out of life. They , in a very round about way, learn and mimic to not expect and not create what THEY need for themselves, rather just going forward almost blindly.

Kids copy to a huge extent exactly what they learn in their house hold. I personally do not want little bean to learn to cope with someone who makes them feel less than. I always want her to feel confident in the ability she has to MAKE her life what she wants and this includes the shuffle in and out of people, whether it be friends or lovers. There are millions of people on this planet, to feel as if you have to stay with one who does not contribute equally or is not interested , or caring, or what ever the reason is not always necessary and can be a hard lesson to teach a child too. The chances of them doing the SAME thing are pretty high .

I want her to learn that some consequences ARE hard, require an entire change of life, but that it is ok and that it is important and mandatory at times to put yourself first, your children first and require people around you to do the same when it is necessary.

I know this is a very simple, common thought.. and not in any way supported by any testing or studies, but for me personally.. this is my rationale for a bad relationship between two adults with children involved.

1 Reply

Why is Divorce preferable to adultery?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know