Let's hear it from the men, success stories involving KIDS?

[Got it]

It is amazing that one who has so few posts has such a clear understanding how others post and their frequency and style. Amazing!

 

It looks like you can follow your own advice that you just offered me in regards to Goody.

[goodyblue]

Pretty sure quiet storm just said that people should stay married for the children at the peril of their own happiness. Hogwash. NOBODY should waste their life being unhappy. And if the parents are miserable, so are the kids. Horribly unhealthy.

 

And certainly an affair is not the only way. I do not recommend them but some of us found ourselves in them anyway. The question for us is not whether we are right or wrong. The question is what to do. A lot of talk from bs's toward ow tends to be telling us how wrong we are/were. We are old enough to make that judgement without hearing it from others.

Edited November 23, 2013 by goodyblue

[threelaurels]

I agree with Quiet Storm.Research shows that children are better off having one parent die than growing up in a broken home. Unless parental conflict is extreme or abusive, having an intact, two-parent household is in the best interests of the children.

 

Besides, research also shows that unhappily married people who divorce or separate are no happier, on average, than unhappily married adults who stay married. Even unhappy spouses who divorce and remarry are no happier, on average, than unhappy spouses who stay married.

 

Happiness has little to do with environment and everything to do with the individual. Divorce is almost never in the best interests of the children.

[Quiet Storm]

Pretty sure quiet storm just said that people should stay married for the children at the peril of their own happiness. Hogwash. NOBODY should waste their life being unhappy. And if the parents are miserable, so are the kids. Horribly unhealthy.

 

And certainly an affair is not the only way. I do not recommend them but some of us found ourselves in them anyway. The question for us is not whether we are right or wrong. The question is what to do. A lot of talk from bs's toward ow tends to be telling us how wrong we are/were. We are old enough to make that judgement without hearing it from others.

 

Happiness comes from within. You should not depend on others to make you happy- that's unhealthy. Plenty of people have circumstances much worse than boring marriages and find ways to be happy. Fill your life with friends, family, activities that you love to find joy. It's shortsighted to think you must have romance in your life to be happy. Im not talking abusive situations here... So if you can't contain your miserableness and choose to let it rain down on your kids, then therapy can help. Learn to cope with your feelings in a healthy way so you aren't negatively affecting your kids.

 

I think when you have kids you make a commitment to put their well being first. I don't think its cool to derail your kids lives for romance. You want to drag your kids around on your quest for happiness... I get that. I just dont think its fair to them, you are supposed to be their advocate, their protector. Kids have enough to deal with from outsiders, and shouldn't have to cope with their parents selfish choices.

[GreySkyMorning]

I agree with Quiet Storm.Research shows that children are better off having one parent die than growing up in a broken home. Unless parental conflict is extreme or abusive, having an intact, two-parent household is in the best interests of the children.

 

Besides, research also shows that unhappily married people who divorce or separate are no happier, on average, than unhappily married adults who stay married. Even unhappy spouses who divorce and remarry are no happier, on average, than unhappy spouses who stay married.

 

Happiness has little to do with environment and everything to do with the individual. Divorce is almost never in the best interests of the children.

 

Thus has to be the most ridiculous thing I've read in a while. I just looked at my 14 and 16 yr old children and asked them if they'd have been better off if one of us parents had died instead of divorcing ten years ago. They both looked horrified at the thought. I'm also reasonably sure I'd have not been better off had my father died instead of divorcing my mother when I was 11. Any child is going to be fine with two parents that love them, show that love, and don't use them as a tool to hurt the other parent.

[sweet_pea]

Thus has to be the most ridiculous thing I've read in a while. I just looked at my 14 and 16 yr old children and asked them if they'd have been better off if one of us parents had died instead of divorcing ten years ago. They both looked horrified at the thought. I'm also reasonably sure I'd have not been better off had my father died instead of divorcing my mother when I was 11. Any child is going to be fine with two parents that love them, show that love, and don't use them as a tool to hurt the other parent.

 

I think you read that wrong. She said that studies have shown that kids are better off w/ a deceased parent rather than growing up in a broken home. Not that kids are better off with a deceased parent rather than divorced parents.

[GreySkyMorning]

I also feel that child sexual abuse in this country is an epidemic (1 in 4 girls, 1 in 6 boys). It has been my observation that a significant portion of the perpetrators are stepfathers, moms boyfriend, coaches, priests, etc. Kids from intact families aren't exposed to moms boyfriends. Most coach/ priest type pedophiles choose victims where the father is not in the home. A father's presence in the home is a huge deterrent. Part of a fathers job is to protect, and I just don't think they can do that as well from another home.

 

It is easy to say, I would've been better off if my parents divorced. However, if you are one of the kids that experienced the circumstances I desribed above, tolerating bickering parents would be a dream for them.

 

I do know that there are cases that do work out for the better, so I wanted to explain the reasoning for my opinion in my other post.

 

With all due respect, you are clueless. I was sexually abused for 14 years straight as a child. It started in an intact family home and was perpetrated by a blood family member. It started 7 yrs before my parents divorced. To imply that most cases of sexual abuse of children are a result of broken homes is simply ridiculous.

[threelaurels]

Thus has to be the most ridiculous thing I've read in a while. I just looked at my 14 and 16 yr old children and asked them if they'd have been better off if one of us parents had died instead of divorcing ten years ago. They both looked horrified at the thought. I'm also reasonably sure I'd have not been better off had my father died instead of divorcing my mother when I was 11. Any child is going to be fine with two parents that love them, show that love, and don't use them as a tool to hurt the other parent.

 

It was found in an 80-year long study by a Stanford professor named Lewis Terman. It is one of the most influential studies out there today because of its length. Other studies have also replicated the finding. While it obviously doesn't apply to every case, it is true on average.

[threelaurels]

I think you read that wrong. She said that studies have shown that kids are better off w/ a deceased parent rather than growing up in a broken home. Not that kids are better off with a deceased parent rather than divorced parents.

 

The study actually does show that kids, on average, would be better off having one parent die than having their parents divorce. The exception is in cases where there is high conflict and/or abuse in the home. In those cases, divorce is better than remaining in the home.

 

Keep in mind that this all applies on average. It doesn't necessarily apply to every individual situation.

[GreySkyMorning]

It was found in an 80-year long study by a Stanford professor named Lewis Terman. It is one of the most influential studies out there today because of its length. Other studies have also replicated the finding. While it obviously doesn't apply to every case, it is true on average.

 

That was a study started nearly 100 yrs ago simply looking at longevity of people from split homes. Living conditions for the children of most single parents are dramatically different today than they were in 1921. I don't think you can compare it.

[sweet_pea]

Well I stand corrected!

[threelaurels]

That was a study started nearly 100 yrs ago simply looking at longevity of people from split homes. Living conditions for the children of most single parents are dramatically different today than they were in 1921. I don't think you can compare it.

 

It was a study of gifted children that was intended to survey each stage of life. They did far more than look at longevity. I don't have any of the original articles in front of me, but my notes say that they found children of divorce had more behavioral and psychological problems, were more likely to be involved in crime, earned less money and had less stable jobs that were below their intellectual abilities, had higher rates of divorce themselves, were more likely to be involved in drugs, and were more likely to drop out of school.

 

I agree that there are many flaws in the study, the generalizability being the biggest one. However, you would have these same problems in any study of this length.

 

I should also add that the only reason I am even generalizing these results despite the non-representative sample is because further research shows that these findings hold true for nationally representative samples.

Edited November 23, 2013 by threelaurels

[Quiet Storm]

With all due respect, you are clueless. I was sexually abused for 14 years straight as a child. It started in an intact family home and was perpetrated by a blood family member. It started 7 yrs before my parents divorced. To imply that most cases of sexual abuse of children are a result of broken homes is simply ridiculous.

 

When did I imply most cases of sexual abuse are a result of a broken home?

 

My sister was sexually abused by a family member, so i am not clueless in the least. My family deals with the aftermath everyday, as her abuse resulted in borderline personality disorder. It is because of her, that I am such an advocate against sexual abuse.

 

I used the term " a significant portion" are from stepfathers, moms boyfriends, coaches, priests. Even if it is only 30% of the total cases- that is millions of kids. 1 in 4 American girls are sexually abused. I said I think having a father in the home helps to prevent these types of pedophiles from targeting your kids.

 

Sadly, having a father in the home couldn't save you or my sister from a pedophile family member. This does not mean that we shouldnt try to prevent abuse from other perpetrators.

Edited November 23, 2013 by Quiet Storm
i did not intend to use a smiley but i cant get rid of it

[lollipopspot]

Happiness comes from within. You should not depend on others to make you happy- that's unhealthy. Plenty of people have circumstances much worse than boring marriages and find ways to be happy. Fill your life with friends, family, activities that you love to find joy. It's shortsighted to think you must have romance in your life to be happy. Im not talking abusive situations here... So if you can't contain your miserableness and choose to let it rain down on your kids, then therapy can help. Learn to cope with your feelings in a healthy way so you aren't negatively affecting your kids.

 

I think when you have kids you make a commitment to put their well being first. I don't think its cool to derail your kids lives for romance. You want to drag your kids around on your quest for happiness... I get that. I just dont think its fair to them, you are supposed to be their advocate, their protector. Kids have enough to deal with from outsiders, and shouldn't have to cope with their parents selfish choices.

 

I couldn't agree with this more. I think at least while the children are young people ought best for the sake of their children to try to be civil and friendly to each other and maintain the partnership, even if they think they've "fallen out of love." There's an idea of marriage that it has to always be exciting! sexual! romantic! and people must separate (even with small children) if it doesn't meet that criteria. Young children are the higher commitment, and if people are mature, the marriage can still function well as a partnership.

[ThatsJustHowIRoll]

I was physically abused by a step parent.

I was molested by a man who lived across the street for 10 Years and made his move after dad left the home.

I had inappropriate and strained relationships with the opposite sex.

I was living independently at 16

I abused alcohol and drugs to cope.

I was isolated from family

 

would have been nice if Dad had at least tried to work on the family instead of running away with the Ow. Give me two bickering parents any day,

[lollipopspot]

Pretty sure quiet storm just said that people should stay married for the children at the peril of their own happiness. Hogwash. NOBODY should waste their life being unhappy.

 

I honestly think if someone's top priority in life pursuing "personal happiness" then they probably shouldn't have children. Because when you have children you often have to put their happiness and well-being above your own. Taking on responsibility for someone's life - bringing them into the world - means that for a period of time when they are young, your personal happiness is not supreme. It is ideal when a parent's happiness comes from caring for and nurturing their young children, but when that isn't the case, they ought best to put their responsibility first.

[ThatsJustHowIRoll]

..the thread title asks for Mm to give success stories with kids. If you ask my dad now if his story is a success, he'd probably say yes. He has 4 step daughters and a slew of children that call him 'poppy'...who he sees regularly, and is the paternal figure. He is happy, unremorseful, and recently lectured me publicly on facebook about the importance of family.

 

He still has not come to meet my daughter. He has met my sons only a handful of times.

 

Clearly success is a subjective term. He barely looked back at the damage left in his wake, so I'm not sure MM can gave an objective account of whether leaving their flesh and blood was 'successful' or not.

[Quiet Storm]

I couldn't agree with this more. I think at least while the children are young people ought best for the sake of their children to try to be civil and friendly to each other and maintain the partnership, even if they think they've "fallen out of love." There's an idea of marriage that it has to always be exciting! sexual! romantic! and people must separate (even with small children) if it doesn't meet that criteria. Young children are the higher commitment, and if people are mature, the marriage can still function well as a partnership.

 

Yes.

Some couples may be even be able to negotiate a discreet open marriage. At least no dishonesty would be involved. At the very least, an open marriage discussion would illustrate the seriousness of the situation.

 

Jerry sandusky targeted kids with single moms, playing helpful coach.

 

I don't see how you can deny that dads in the home offer protection. Same concept as burglers skip houses with dogs.

[ThatsJustHowIRoll]

I honestly think if someone's top priority in life pursuing "personal happiness" then they probably shouldn't have children. Because when you have children you often have to put their happiness and well-being above your own. Taking on responsibility for someone's life - bringing them into the world - means that for a period of time when they are young, your personal happiness is not supreme. It is ideal when a parent's happiness comes from caring for and nurturing their young children, but when that isn't the case, they ought best to put their responsibility first.

 

For years I was told by with parents that their happiness was more important.

 

Now I have kids of my own. NOW I get how selfish they were. I am by no means a perfect parent, but it was MY choice to have them, so it is my responsibility to give them the best life I can, and PROTECT them. They did not choose to be born. I will never walk away from them.

[wanting more]

I swore I was going to stay in my R until my youngest turned 18. She's now 13. I told her father, his parents knew, my family knew.

 

We did not have a good, happy home. We fought over most things. Big or small

 

My oldest daughter barely spoke to him when she lived hetr. Even less now. My son was seeing a psychiatrist because of issues at school and home. Bad grades. Acting out. Sad. Very short tempered.

 

My BSO moved out about 10 months ago.

 

My son Doesn't go to the psychiatrist anymore. He's not on medication. He has average grades now. I've not been called once from school this year to discuss problems.

 

My oldest told me the other day she's so happy to see me happy. The stress level is near 0 in my home now

 

I thought I was doing the right thing by staying in my R for the kids. I hurt them more than helped them.

 

My A was a huge mistake. But the idea that every kid would rather have arguing parents, parents who couldn't even look at each other, completely stressed out parents, is too general. For every study done, if you look deep enough, you can find a contradicting one.

[William]

Moderation has identified enough disruptive posting to queue this for processing so I'll close the thread pending that review. Thanks for your participation.