Honestly, I don't know what I want from this post. Maybe just a chance
to vent, or to have someone say that it's ok for me to be upset.

We've been married for 10 years and have 4 kids. Back when the 3rd
child was a newborn, DH spent the majority of each day online,
chatting with various women (he was unemployed and I was supporting
us). Over the next two years, he had a "relationship" with I'd guess
about 15 women.

I know this because I got this hinky feeling early on and checked up
on him. I'm not proud of myself. At one point, I'd just been pushed to
my absolute limits and I walked out on him, leaving the kids there. I
was gone for a month; I returned after he begged me to do so, and he
promised that there would be no involvement with women on the
internet.

That was only 5 years ago. This Christmas, it'll be three years since
he started getting back online constantly. It has gotten worse in the
last year, to the point that each night when he comes home from work,
he sits at the computer and doesn't get up until it's bedtime. He eats
dinner at the computer as well.

Last year, I found that he was chatting with some women again while
playing a game. I'd say for a couple where there aren't trust issues,
this wouldn't be a huge deal, but I was playing the same game and not
chatting up my opponent nor adding them to my buddy list as he was
doing. I know this is a matter of personal preference, but I felt like
he was back to chatting with anonymous women because they're giving
him some strokes he feels he doesn't get from me.

I told him how angry I was about that and he stopped, but now he's
started again. I'm at the point where I realize I've spent 5 years of
the last 10 essentially being a single parent since he is rarely
involved with the kids.

I'm in counseling right now because of various issues, including the
fact that I think it's best to leave because I spend so much of my
time feeling horrible about my marriage and being horrified at the
prospect of spending 20 or 30 more years like this. The problem is
that I'm scared to take this on myself, but that's not the issue here.

Any advice for dealing with this on a short-term basis? He doesn't
react well to ultimatums (it would come down to him telling me to
leave and take the kids, which I cannot do right now), and due to some
health issues, I'm really not up for a knock-down-drag-out, which is
what every arguement with him turns into.

Thanks
BG

"Buttercup Glitter" <buttercupglitter@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2f72aa26.0310212103.2cf9d080@posting.google.c om... Honestly, I don't know what I want from this post. Maybe just a chance to vent, or to have someone say that it's ok for me to be upset. We've been married for 10 years and have 4 kids. Back when the 3rd child was a newborn, DH spent the majority of each day online, chatting with various women (he was unemployed and I was supporting us). Over the next two years, he had a "relationship" with I'd guess about 15 women.

Sounds like he is not too happy with married life.
I walked out on him, leaving the kids there. I was gone for a month;

Bet it was great to be foot loose and fancy free for a month. That was only 5 years ago. This Christmas, it'll be three years since he started getting back online constantly. It has gotten worse in the last year, to the point that each night when he comes home from work, he sits at the computer and doesn't get up until it's bedtime. He eats dinner at the computer as well.

Well, it is pretty obvious that he is not happy with the life he has. Have
you talked about this with him in a non-accusing way? Is there anything you
can do to make his life a little better so that he isn't so anxious to get
out of reality the second he gets home?
Last year, I found that he was chatting with some women again while playing a game. I'd say for a couple where there aren't trust issues, this wouldn't be a huge deal, but I was playing the same game and not chatting up my opponent nor adding them to my buddy list as he was doing. I know this is a matter of personal preference, but I felt like he was back to chatting with anonymous women because they're giving him some strokes he feels he doesn't get from me.

Sounds like you need to be giving him those strokes, and he wouldn't be
seeking it elsewhere. If you are aware of this problem, why haven't you
fixed it yet?
I told him how angry I was about that and he stopped, but now he's started again. I'm at the point where I realize I've spent 5 years of the last 10 essentially being a single parent since he is rarely involved with the kids.

Ok, so he was willing to change his behavior to help things. What behavior
were you willing to change to make life a little nicer for him so he doesn't
feel compelled to do this?
I'm in counseling right now because of various issues, including the fact that I think it's best to leave because I spend so much of my time feeling horrible about my marriage and being horrified at the prospect of spending 20 or 30 more years like this. The problem is that I'm scared to take this on myself, but that's not the issue here. Any advice for dealing with this on a short-term basis? He doesn't react well to ultimatums (it would come down to him telling me to leave and take the kids, which I cannot do right now), and due to some health issues, I'm really not up for a knock-down-drag-out, which is what every arguement with him turns into. Thanks BG

You need to find out what the problem is and put every ounce of your effort
into fixing it. As usual around here, most women are looking at the
difficulty from a "me, me, me" perspective and fail to understand that they
are probably causing the underlying problem. Forget about YOU for a minute
and try to figure out just what you can do for your husband to make him
happier.

It works wonders.

SD

ummmmm disconnect the internet.. would be my first suggestion...

and joint counseling.. would be my second


Kass


"Buttercup Glitter" <buttercupglitter@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2f72aa26.0310212103.2cf9d080@posting.google.c om... Honestly, I don't know what I want from this post. Maybe just a chance to vent, or to have someone say that it's ok for me to be upset. We've been married for 10 years and have 4 kids. Back when the 3rd child was a newborn, DH spent the majority of each day online, chatting with various women (he was unemployed and I was supporting us). Over the next two years, he had a "relationship" with I'd guess about 15 women. I know this because I got this hinky feeling early on and checked up on him. I'm not proud of myself. At one point, I'd just been pushed to my absolute limits and I walked out on him, leaving the kids there. I was gone for a month; I returned after he begged me to do so, and he promised that there would be no involvement with women on the internet. That was only 5 years ago. This Christmas, it'll be three years since he started getting back online constantly. It has gotten worse in the last year, to the point that each night when he comes home from work, he sits at the computer and doesn't get up until it's bedtime. He eats dinner at the computer as well. Last year, I found that he was chatting with some women again while playing a game. I'd say for a couple where there aren't trust issues, this wouldn't be a huge deal, but I was playing the same game and not chatting up my opponent nor adding them to my buddy list as he was doing. I know this is a matter of personal preference, but I felt like he was back to chatting with anonymous women because they're giving him some strokes he feels he doesn't get from me. I told him how angry I was about that and he stopped, but now he's started again. I'm at the point where I realize I've spent 5 years of the last 10 essentially being a single parent since he is rarely involved with the kids. I'm in counseling right now because of various issues, including the fact that I think it's best to leave because I spend so much of my time feeling horrible about my marriage and being horrified at the prospect of spending 20 or 30 more years like this. The problem is that I'm scared to take this on myself, but that's not the issue here. Any advice for dealing with this on a short-term basis? He doesn't react well to ultimatums (it would come down to him telling me to leave and take the kids, which I cannot do right now), and due to some health issues, I'm really not up for a knock-down-drag-out, which is what every arguement with him turns into. Thanks BG

"Buttercup Glitter" <buttercupglitter@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2f72aa26.0310221058.536f1e35@posting.google.c om... Tony Miller <tony@cigardiary.com> wrote in message
news:<slrnbpd0ph.8r6.tony@callisto.jtan.com>... Have you made a decision to love him? (I asked that question very carefully). I don't know. Up until maybe about 7 months ago, I'd have said yes, absolutely. Now I feel like I keep putting myself out there and all he does is stomp around on me.

it's pretty obvious he's not happy being married to you. You might want to
start thinking about life without him.

On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 00:50:28 GMT, "JWB" <jwbSPAMBEGONE3333@excite.com>
wrote:
"Buttercup Glitter" <buttercupglitter@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:2f72aa26.0310221058.536f1e35@posting.g oogle.com... Tony Miller <tony@cigardiary.com> wrote in messagenews:<slrnbpd0ph.8r6.tony@callisto.jtan.com>... Have you made a decision to love him? (I asked that question very carefully). I don't know. Up until maybe about 7 months ago, I'd have said yes, absolutely. Now I feel like I keep putting myself out there and all he does is stomp around on me.it's pretty obvious he's not happy being married to you. You might want tostart thinking about life without him.

Holy ****..when did you get back?

--Brian

"Brian" <jbrianchamberlin@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b9bepv0e72bk2u0u5aov3167n61nclvq2a@4ax.com... On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 00:50:28 GMT, "JWB" <jwbSPAMBEGONE3333@excite.com> wrote:"Buttercup Glitter" <buttercupglitter@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:2f72aa26.0310221058.536f1e35@posting.g oogle.com... Tony Miller <tony@cigardiary.com> wrote in messagenews:<slrnbpd0ph.8r6.tony@callisto.jtan.com>... > Have you made a decision to love him? (I asked that question very > carefully). I don't know. Up until maybe about 7 months ago, I'd have said yes, absolutely. Now I feel like I keep putting myself out there and all he does is stomp around on me.it's pretty obvious he's not happy being married to you. You might want
tostart thinking about life without him. Holy ****..when did you get back?

Last week or so.

You moved, right? Baby still on the way? Life is better, hopefully?

JWB

"JWB" <jwbSPAMBEGONE3333@excite.com> wrote in message news:<oBFlb.4675$Gq.1834418@twister.nyc.rr.com>... "Buttercup Glitter" <buttercupglitter@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:2f72aa26.0310221058.536f1e35@posting.google.c om... Tony Miller <tony@cigardiary.com> wrote in message news:<slrnbpd0ph.8r6.tony@callisto.jtan.com>... Have you made a decision to love him? (I asked that question very carefully). I don't know. Up until maybe about 7 months ago, I'd have said yes, absolutely. Now I feel like I keep putting myself out there and all he does is stomp around on me. it's pretty obvious he's not happy being married to you. You might want to start thinking about life without him.

Who cares whether he's happy or not? Buttercup is the one that's
posting. I'm more interested in knowing whether she's happy or not.
Doesn't sound like it to me.

jen

"Whisper" <whisperishere@bctonline.com> wrote in message news:<ScClb.37967$A%3.491003@ord-read.news.verio.net>... ummmmm disconnect the internet.. would be my first suggestion...

I think this is a valid option, but the problem I have with it is that
everyone in the family loses then. I use it to keep in touch with
family and friends who live far away, I'm active on several groups,
and since I only have a handful of friends in real life, being
connected to these people is important to me. The kids also use the
internet for homework and playing games. Everyone in the family
shouldn't be punished for HIS actions.
and joint counseling.. would be my second

I suggested that a while back. He agreed to go, but did nothing about
it. I decided at that point because he didn't mention it again, that I
would put that idea on the back burner for the time being, and I'll
explain why.

Right now, I have the majority of the responsibility for the kids and
housework. Beyond the usual school stuff, the kids also have some
other things going on that required them to be in counseling. That was
also 100% my responsibility. I got to the point where I pretty much
refused to take on one more thing before I got help for myself. I've
been in counseling for 5 months and feel like I'm making progress, but
I still have a LONG way to go before I feel like I could possibly be
truly involved in marriage counseling.

I have a lot of anger built up over the way that H has acted over the
years. I'm angry about the way that he shuts himself off from me and
I'm angry about how he feels no compunction about telling me what an
awful person I am. I'm angry that he acts as if he could take or leave
me, and I'm angry that it seems to me like he doesn't appreciate
anything I do because he's so focused on the things I don't do. I'm
angry that I can't even express this anger to him because he turns
every argument around so everything that's wrong with our lives is
*my* fault.

I know that it's not healthy to carry around this much anger and that
it would get in the way of making any long-lasting changes in our
relationship.

I'm aware that part of the reason I didn't take the initiative to
arrange joint counseling is passive-aggressive. For once, I would like
to feel like this is important to him. The only times that he's made
me feel like our relationship was anything but a burden have been when
we were first dating and when he was begging me to come back to him
after I left. Otherwise, I get the feeling that he simply tolerates me
because I can look after the children, clean the house and cook his
meals.

I know that was a longer answer than you expected, but I hope it helps
clear up why we're not in counseling together at the moment.


BG

Buttercup Glitter <buttercupglitter@yahoo.com> wrote: ummmmm disconnect the internet.. would be my first suggestion... I think this is a valid option, but the problem I have with it is that everyone in the family loses then.
<...> Everyone in the family shouldn't be punished for HIS actions.

So put passwords on the machine. Don't give him one. It's not hard.

Can you move the computer into a more Public location.. say the family room
or dining room.. so there is nor real "privacy" with it.. that way everyone
is around to see what anyone is doing on the PC.. and maybe all of you agree
to a time limit of how long each person can spend?

I do know how it feels to have a husband who doesn't seem to give a damn
about you.. my X was that way.. he was addicted to the PC.. but had other
problems..that ended up in the same result. he also was verbally abusive..
(and it sounds like your hubby is too)...

You need to decide what is best for you and for the kids..and go with that..
and not worry about what he wants.. doesn't want.. live for you and the
kids.. and maybe he will come along..and maybe he wont..

You will know what is right.. when the time is right.. when you feel you
have done everything in your power to make it work..and its still not
working...but again.. that point is different for everyone...it took me
several years to reach that point.. ( we were married for 14 years)..

Kass


"Buttercup Glitter" <buttercupglitter@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2f72aa26.0310230646.5fa5fde8@posting.google.c om... "Whisper" <whisperishere@bctonline.com> wrote in message
news:<ScClb.37967$A%3.491003@ord-read.news.verio.net>... ummmmm disconnect the internet.. would be my first suggestion... I think this is a valid option, but the problem I have with it is that everyone in the family loses then. I use it to keep in touch with family and friends who live far away, I'm active on several groups, and since I only have a handful of friends in real life, being connected to these people is important to me. The kids also use the internet for homework and playing games. Everyone in the family shouldn't be punished for HIS actions. and joint counseling.. would be my second I suggested that a while back. He agreed to go, but did nothing about it. I decided at that point because he didn't mention it again, that I would put that idea on the back burner for the time being, and I'll explain why. Right now, I have the majority of the responsibility for the kids and housework. Beyond the usual school stuff, the kids also have some other things going on that required them to be in counseling. That was also 100% my responsibility. I got to the point where I pretty much refused to take on one more thing before I got help for myself. I've been in counseling for 5 months and feel like I'm making progress, but I still have a LONG way to go before I feel like I could possibly be truly involved in marriage counseling. I have a lot of anger built up over the way that H has acted over the years. I'm angry about the way that he shuts himself off from me and I'm angry about how he feels no compunction about telling me what an awful person I am. I'm angry that he acts as if he could take or leave me, and I'm angry that it seems to me like he doesn't appreciate anything I do because he's so focused on the things I don't do. I'm angry that I can't even express this anger to him because he turns every argument around so everything that's wrong with our lives is *my* fault. I know that it's not healthy to carry around this much anger and that it would get in the way of making any long-lasting changes in our relationship. I'm aware that part of the reason I didn't take the initiative to arrange joint counseling is passive-aggressive. For once, I would like to feel like this is important to him. The only times that he's made me feel like our relationship was anything but a burden have been when we were first dating and when he was begging me to come back to him after I left. Otherwise, I get the feeling that he simply tolerates me because I can look after the children, clean the house and cook his meals. I know that was a longer answer than you expected, but I hope it helps clear up why we're not in counseling together at the moment. BG

buttercupglitter@yahoo.com (Buttercup Glitter) writes:
"Whisper" <whisperishere@bctonline.com> wrote in message news:<ScClb.37967$A%3.491003@ord-read.news.verio.net>... ummmmm disconnect the internet.. would be my first suggestion... I think this is a valid option, but the problem I have with it is that everyone in the family loses then. I use it to keep in touch with family and friends who live far away, I'm active on several groups, and since I only have a handful of friends in real life, being connected to these people is important to me. The kids also use the internet for homework and playing games. Everyone in the family shouldn't be punished for HIS actions. and joint counseling.. would be my second I suggested that a while back. He agreed to go, but did nothing about it. I decided at that point because he didn't mention it again, that I would put that idea on the back burner for the time being, and I'll explain why. Right now, I have the majority of the responsibility for the kids and housework. Beyond the usual school stuff, the kids also have some other things going on that required them to be in counseling. That was also 100% my responsibility. I got to the point where I pretty much refused to take on one more thing before I got help for myself. I've been in counseling for 5 months and feel like I'm making progress, but I still have a LONG way to go before I feel like I could possibly be truly involved in marriage counseling. I have a lot of anger built up over the way that H has acted over the years. I'm angry about the way that he shuts himself off from me and I'm angry about how he feels no compunction about telling me what an awful person I am. I'm angry that he acts as if he could take or leave me, and I'm angry that it seems to me like he doesn't appreciate anything I do because he's so focused on the things I don't do. I'm angry that I can't even express this anger to him because he turns every argument around so everything that's wrong with our lives is *my* fault. I know that it's not healthy to carry around this much anger and that it would get in the way of making any long-lasting changes in our relationship. I'm aware that part of the reason I didn't take the initiative to arrange joint counseling is passive-aggressive. For once, I would like to feel like this is important to him. The only times that he's made me feel like our relationship was anything but a burden have been when we were first dating and when he was begging me to come back to him after I left. Otherwise, I get the feeling that he simply tolerates me because I can look after the children, clean the house and cook his meals. I know that was a longer answer than you expected, but I hope it helps clear up why we're not in counseling together at the moment.

An interesting post. It clears up a lot of things. You are carrying
a cargo van's worth of baggage in anger and resentment toward your
husband.

Quite possibly, he is walking around with a cargo van containing his
own list of grievances.

You think the problems are his fault - he thinks they are your fault.

His on-line activities sound like the tip of a rather large iceberg.
There is probably no point in trying to deal with that particular tip,
unless you are both ready to work on the whole iceberg of hostility,
anger and resentment that you've built with each other.

Kudos to you for getting counseling for yourself. If you feel
interested in making your marriage into something decent, consider
_not_ waiting until you are perfect before working on your marriage.

What does your therapist say about your unhappy marital situation and
all the anger you are carrying around toward your husband?

Doug "meta4s are us"

BG

"shinypenny" <shinypenny0001@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c8cb5319.0310222238.1f24a2b9@posting.google.c om... "JWB" <jwbSPAMBEGONE3333@excite.com> wrote in message
news:<oBFlb.4675$Gq.1834418@twister.nyc.rr.com>... "Buttercup Glitter" <buttercupglitter@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:2f72aa26.0310221058.536f1e35@posting.google.c om... Tony Miller <tony@cigardiary.com> wrote in message news:<slrnbpd0ph.8r6.tony@callisto.jtan.com>... > Have you made a decision to love him? (I asked that question very > carefully). I don't know. Up until maybe about 7 months ago, I'd have said yes, absolutely. Now I feel like I keep putting myself out there and all he does is stomp around on me. it's pretty obvious he's not happy being married to you. You might want
to start thinking about life without him. Who cares whether he's happy or not? Buttercup is the one that's posting. I'm more interested in knowing whether she's happy or not. Doesn't sound like it to me.

and that's just what I'm doing - giving advice to Buttercup.

It's evident that he doesn't give a **** about her feelings. Obviously, she
isn't happy about that, or she wouldn't have posted. I think this is a lost
cause, given his behavior and lack of caring about her feelings. Hence me
telling her to think about life without him.

JWB

trajan@sfchat.org (Marcus Ulpius Traianus) wrote in message news:<omdl61-ss7.ln1@mail.sfchat.org>... Buttercup Glitter <buttercupglitter@yahoo.com> wrote: ummmmm disconnect the internet.. would be my first suggestion... I think this is a valid option, but the problem I have with it is that everyone in the family loses then. <...> Everyone in the family shouldn't be punished for HIS actions. So put passwords on the machine. Don't give him one. It's not hard.

I don't see it as that easy. Sounds to me like her husband has an
addiction. If he was an alcoholic, I wouldn't suggest to her that it
was her responsibility to keep the liquor cabinet locked up. If he
asked for her help keeping him away from temptation, that's one thing.
But enforcing it on him without his cooperation is another thing.

Addictions are hard to break. If her husband wanted to try but was
having trouble sticking to his promise, then I would encourage
Buttercup to stay in the marriage and help him work through his
problems. But it doesn't sound like he thinks he has a problem, and
realizes it's affecting their marriage. On the contrary, he sounds
defiant about the whole thing.

jen

shinypenny <shinypenny0001@yahoo.com> wrote: trajan@sfchat.org (Marcus Ulpius Traianus) wrote: Buttercup Glitter <buttercupglitter@yahoo.com> wrote: I think this is a valid option, but the problem I have with it is that everyone in the family loses then. <...> Everyone in the family shouldn't be punished for HIS actions. So put passwords on the machine. Don't give him one. It's not hard. I don't see it as that easy. Sounds to me like her husband has an addiction.
<...> problems. But it doesn't sound like he thinks he has a problem, and realizes it's affecting their marriage. On the contrary, he sounds defiant about the whole thing.

<McCoy imitation>
Damnit Jim, I'm an engineer, not a therapist!
</McCoy imitation>

Seriously, though, you may very well be right -- but if he's willing to try
to change it, it's not something one can banish from the house entirely, and
putting a password on might help -- depending on how technically adept he is
and how much he looks at it as "his machine."

He may or may not have the sort of job where he can do all of the same stuff
at work, of course... if he does, then locking up the machine at home just
moves the problem out of the house to somewhere it's not visible.

"Whisper" <whisperishere@bctonline.com> wrote in message news:<4LTlb.37978$A%3.491239@ord-read.news.verio.net>...


Kass, I'm sorry I didn't respond to this sooner. Google wasn't letting
me post on Friday and I can't do it over the weekends.

Can you move the computer into a more Public location.. say the family room or dining room.

I can't, because our dining room is the office right now. The family
room has no room for it, and the living room is just as bad as the
office as far as being shut off from everyone.
and maybe all of you agree to a time limit of how long each person can spend?

Funny thing is that he suggested time limits a while back and promptly
ignored his own suggestion.
I do know how it feels to have a husband who doesn't seem to give a damn about you.. my X was that way.. he was addicted to the PC.. but had other problems..that ended up in the same result. he also was verbally abusive.. (and it sounds like your hubby is too)...

I've been doing a lot of reading and believe that, too. He seems to
have a lot of traits of borderline personality disorder. The good
thing is that I've joined a couple of online support groups and, while
it's exceedingly painful to face this, I feel better and more
optimistic for facing it.
You will know what is right.. when the time is right.. when you feel you have done everything in your power to make it work..and its still not working...but again.. that point is different for everyone...it took me several years to reach that point.. ( we were married for 14 years)..

I believe I'm at that point. I'm slowly facing some of the awful
things he's done for what they were, rather than trying to make
excuses for him. I have a feeling this is going to get worse before it
gets better, but at least I have a small feeling that it IS going to
get better if I continue on this path.

Thanks,
BG

No Problem. I wasn't online this weekend any way


Hang in there. .do what you have to do to keep you and the kids
happy..continue your counseling..and live your life.. with or with out
him..<S>

Kass
"Buttercup Glitter" <buttercupglitter@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2f72aa26.0310271019.1d8dcb3f@posting.google.c om... "Whisper" <whisperishere@bctonline.com> wrote in message
news:<4LTlb.37978$A%3.491239@ord-read.news.verio.net>... Kass, I'm sorry I didn't respond to this sooner. Google wasn't letting me post on Friday and I can't do it over the weekends. Can you move the computer into a more Public location.. say the family
room or dining room. I can't, because our dining room is the office right now. The family room has no room for it, and the living room is just as bad as the office as far as being shut off from everyone. and maybe all of you agree to a time limit of how long each person can spend? Funny thing is that he suggested time limits a while back and promptly ignored his own suggestion. I do know how it feels to have a husband who doesn't seem to give a damn about you.. my X was that way.. he was addicted to the PC.. but had
other problems..that ended up in the same result. he also was verbally
abusive.. (and it sounds like your hubby is too)... I've been doing a lot of reading and believe that, too. He seems to have a lot of traits of borderline personality disorder. The good thing is that I've joined a couple of online support groups and, while it's exceedingly painful to face this, I feel better and more optimistic for facing it. You will know what is right.. when the time is right.. when you feel you have done everything in your power to make it work..and its still not working...but again.. that point is different for everyone...it took me several years to reach that point.. ( we were married for 14 years).. I believe I'm at that point. I'm slowly facing some of the awful things he's done for what they were, rather than trying to make excuses for him. I have a feeling this is going to get worse before it gets better, but at least I have a small feeling that it IS going to get better if I continue on this path. Thanks, BG

"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:meUlb.4007$ao4.10162@attbi_s51... buttercupglitter@yahoo.com (Buttercup Glitter) writes: "Whisper" <whisperishere@bctonline.com> wrote in message
news:<ScClb.37967$A%3.491003@ord-read.news.verio.net>... ummmmm disconnect the internet.. would be my first suggestion... I think this is a valid option, but the problem I have with it is that everyone in the family loses then. I use it to keep in touch with family and friends who live far away, I'm active on several groups, and since I only have a handful of friends in real life, being connected to these people is important to me. The kids also use the internet for homework and playing games. Everyone in the family shouldn't be punished for HIS actions. and joint counseling.. would be my second I suggested that a while back. He agreed to go, but did nothing about it. I decided at that point because he didn't mention it again, that I would put that idea on the back burner for the time being, and I'll explain why. Right now, I have the majority of the responsibility for the kids and housework. Beyond the usual school stuff, the kids also have some other things going on that required them to be in counseling. That was also 100% my responsibility. I got to the point where I pretty much refused to take on one more thing before I got help for myself. I've been in counseling for 5 months and feel like I'm making progress, but I still have a LONG way to go before I feel like I could possibly be truly involved in marriage counseling.

But isn't your mental heath and the success (or failure) of your marriage
connected. I don't think they are exclusive of each other, I think they go
hand in hand. I have a lot of anger built up over the way that H has acted over the years. I'm angry about the way that he shuts himself off from me and I'm angry about how he feels no compunction about telling me what an awful person I am. I'm angry that he acts as if he could take or leave me, and I'm angry that it seems to me like he doesn't appreciate anything I do because he's so focused on the things I don't do. I'm angry that I can't even express this anger to him because he turns every argument around so everything that's wrong with our lives is *my* fault.

Been there - different circumstances, same argument! It's a matter of
figuring out *how* to approach each subject without making im feel like you
are placing all the blame on him. But you also have to be careful not to
take the blame for things which are not your fault or for things over which
you have no control. For example (a problem we used to have) ..if I said
the DH "We are $X overdrawn and it's because you spent X on whatever" there
is going to be an argument like to other. But if I say "I tried to balance
the account today and I'm off somewhere. Would you take a look at it and
see if you can find out where *we* got off track?" That allows him to look
at the problem without being defensive about it.
I know that it's not healthy to carry around this much anger and that it would get in the way of making any long-lasting changes in our relationship.

He also has to be willing to make any long-lasting changes. I'm aware that part of the reason I didn't take the initiative to arrange joint counseling is passive-aggressive. For once, I would like to feel like this is important to him. The only times that he's made me feel like our relationship was anything but a burden have been when we were first dating and when he was begging me to come back to him after I left. Otherwise, I get the feeling that he simply tolerates me because I can look after the children, clean the house and cook his meals.

You can't make him make you feel important, and you can't make him make your
marriage important. That is totally him. In the past, I have had to
finally say to DH "I'm not prepared to live like this for the rest of my
life. I've told you what my issues are, and which ones are deal-breakers
for me. Now it's up to you to decide what *your* priorities are."
I know that was a longer answer than you expected, but I hope it helps clear up why we're not in counseling together at the moment. An interesting post. It clears up a lot of things. You are carrying a cargo van's worth of baggage in anger and resentment toward your husband. Quite possibly, he is walking around with a cargo van containing his own list of grievances. You think the problems are his fault - he thinks they are your fault.

I think it's a bad idea to assign blame (execpt in certain circumstances)
since each person has to own their share of the responsibility for what goes
on in the marriage. IMO, assigning blame only fuels the fire. You can
avoid the blame game without having to walk on egshells. His on-line activities sound like the tip of a rather large iceberg. There is probably no point in trying to deal with that particular tip, unless you are both ready to work on the whole iceberg of hostility, anger and resentment that you've built with each other. Kudos to you for getting counseling for yourself. If you feel interested in making your marriage into something decent, consider _not_ waiting until you are perfect before working on your marriage.

Yes, yes, yes!
What does your therapist say about your unhappy marital situation and all the anger you are carrying around toward your husband? Doug "meta4s are us" BG

"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:iNPpb.103972$Fm2.88393@attbi_s04...

[] As far as the kids, consider the hypothesis that going through a divorce might be better for them than having a really poor model for a marriage.

According to what I've been reading about the effects of divorce, this is
unlikely to be true. In general, children are better off with good parents
in a bad marriage than having to deal with divorce.

Jayne

Jayne Kulikauskas wrote:
As far as the kids, consider the hypothesis that going through a divorce might be better for them than having a really poor model for a marriage. According to what I've been reading about the effects of divorce, this is unlikely to be true. In general, children are better off with good parents in a bad marriage than having to deal with divorce.

I think you are right, given the *bad* marriage doesn't include violence or
visibly abusive behavior between the parents. If two people can keep a civil
relationship and provide a stable and loving home for their children it's much
better for the kids than divorce, even if the parents don't feel quite happy.
Children are more affected by how they themselves are treated than how parents
treat each other. What the children *see* as a model is not as important as
their own experience of love and devotion from their parents.

But this is only one side of the coin (what is best for children), and not the
whole story. Parents' happiness is also important. Children's interest is very
high in priority in my view, but not everyone is able or willing to sacrifice
their own happiness for their children. What I don't buy is when parents fool
themselves in believing that whatever makes them happy is best for their kids
too. That is simple denial. I think it is much more admirable to say I want to
be happy, know that my kids will pay a price, and will do my best to reduce
that price as much as possible.

"Jayne Kulikauskas" <momkulio@yahoo.ca> writes:
"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:iNPpb.103972$Fm2.88393@attbi_s04... [] As far as the kids, consider the hypothesis that going through a divorce might be better for them than having a really poor model for a marriage. According to what I've been reading about the effects of divorce, this is unlikely to be true. In general, children are better off with good parents in a bad marriage than having to deal with divorce.

Well, lots of people say this, so it is easy to read it.

I've yet to see one source that presents any decent evidence for it.

One of the problems is that it is very difficult to obtain such
evidence. You'd have to compare similar families where one group of
couples decided to divorce, and the other group of couples decided to
stay in bad marriages for the sake of the children.

Note the obvious flaw here: there is a big difference between the
couples who decide to divorce vs. the couples who decide to stay
together for the children. So you are already comparing quite
disparate groups.

Doug

"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:jbYpb.79039$275.218742@attbi_s53... "Jayne Kulikauskas" <momkulio@yahoo.ca> writes: "Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:iNPpb.103972$Fm2.88393@attbi_s04... [] As far as the kids, consider the hypothesis that going through a
divorce might be better for them than having a really poor model for a
marriage. According to what I've been reading about the effects of divorce, this
is unlikely to be true. In general, children are better off with good
parents in a bad marriage than having to deal with divorce. Well, lots of people say this, so it is easy to read it. I've yet to see one source that presents any decent evidence for it. One of the problems is that it is very difficult to obtain such evidence. You'd have to compare similar families where one group of couples decided to divorce, and the other group of couples decided to stay in bad marriages for the sake of the children. Note the obvious flaw here: there is a big difference between the couples who decide to divorce vs. the couples who decide to stay together for the children. So you are already comparing quite disparate groups.

Have you seen _The Unexpected Legacy of Divorce_ by Judith Wallerstein, et
al? She comes to this conclusion by doing long term case studies. This is
also similar to the conclusions of Paul Amato and Allan Booth, sociologists
at Penn State who have studied this question. Are you familiar with their
work?

Jayne

On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 22:24:11 -0500, "Jayne Kulikauskas"
<momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote:
"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:jbYpb.79039$275.218742@attbi_s53... "Jayne Kulikauskas" <momkulio@yahoo.ca> writes: "Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:iNPpb.103972$Fm2.88393@attbi_s04... [] > As far as the kids, consider the hypothesis that going through adivorce > might be better for them than having a really poor model for amarriage. According to what I've been reading about the effects of divorce, thisis unlikely to be true. In general, children are better off with goodparents in a bad marriage than having to deal with divorce. Well, lots of people say this, so it is easy to read it. I've yet to see one source that presents any decent evidence for it. One of the problems is that it is very difficult to obtain such evidence. You'd have to compare similar families where one group of couples decided to divorce, and the other group of couples decided to stay in bad marriages for the sake of the children. Note the obvious flaw here: there is a big difference between the couples who decide to divorce vs. the couples who decide to stay together for the children. So you are already comparing quite disparate groups.Have you seen _The Unexpected Legacy of Divorce_ by Judith Wallerstein, etal? She comes to this conclusion by doing long term case studies. This isalso similar to the conclusions of Paul Amato and Allan Booth, sociologistsat Penn State who have studied this question. Are you familiar with theirwork?Jayne
However if both parents consider the kids needs over theirs, the
divorce will not have a lasting negative effect on the kids. In some
cases if both the parents cooperate (like living within walking/biking
distance from each other) the kids may have an improved relationship
with the parents.
Admittedly this takes two mature adults, which seem to be in short
supply these days.

"Jayne Kulikauskas" <momkulio@yahoo.ca> writes:
"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:jbYpb.79039$275.218742@attbi_s53... "Jayne Kulikauskas" <momkulio@yahoo.ca> writes: "Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:iNPpb.103972$Fm2.88393@attbi_s04... [] > As far as the kids, consider the hypothesis that going through a divorce > might be better for them than having a really poor model for a marriage. According to what I've been reading about the effects of divorce, this is unlikely to be true. In general, children are better off with good parents in a bad marriage than having to deal with divorce. Well, lots of people say this, so it is easy to read it. I've yet to see one source that presents any decent evidence for it. One of the problems is that it is very difficult to obtain such evidence. You'd have to compare similar families where one group of couples decided to divorce, and the other group of couples decided to stay in bad marriages for the sake of the children. Note the obvious flaw here: there is a big difference between the couples who decide to divorce vs. the couples who decide to stay together for the children. So you are already comparing quite disparate groups. Have you seen _The Unexpected Legacy of Divorce_ by Judith Wallerstein, et al? She comes to this conclusion by doing long term case studies.

Yes, and her work suffers from _precisely_ the flaw I mentioned.
This is also similar to the conclusions of Paul Amato and Allan Booth, sociologists at Penn State who have studied this question. Are you familiar with their work?

No. How do they form their conclusions?

Like I said; it is easy to find people who will make this assertion,
and not so easy to find actual evidence.

On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 18:24:01 -0500, "Jayne Kulikauskas"
<momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote:
"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:iNPpb.103972$Fm2.88393@attbi_s04...[] As far as the kids, consider the hypothesis that going through a divorce might be better for them than having a really poor model for a marriage.According to what I've been reading about the effects of divorce, this isunlikely to be true. In general, children are better off with good parentsin a bad marriage than having to deal with divorce.Jayne
It's only untrue if either the parents use the kids as a bargaining
chip or to get back at the other spouse. If the parents are mature
and are willing to co-operate the kids can still see each parent
everyday.

Rauni wrote: On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 22:24:11 -0500, "Jayne Kulikauskas" <momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote: "Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:jbYpb.79039$275.218742@attbi_s53... "Jayne Kulikauskas" <momkulio@yahoo.ca> writes:> "Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message> news:iNPpb.103972$Fm2.88393@attbi_s04...>> []>> As far as the kids, consider the hypothesis that going through a divorce>> might be better for them than having a really poor model for a marriage.>> According to what I've been reading about the effects of divorce, this is> unlikely to be true. In general, children are better off with good
parents> in a bad marriage than having to deal with divorce. Well, lots of people say this, so it is easy to read it. I've yet to see one source that presents any decent evidence for it. One of the problems is that it is very difficult to obtain such evidence. You'd have to compare similar families where one group of couples decided to divorce, and the other group of couples decided to stay in bad marriages for the sake of the children. Note the obvious flaw here: there is a big difference between the couples who decide to divorce vs. the couples who decide to stay together for the children. So you are already comparing quite disparate groups. Have you seen _The Unexpected Legacy of Divorce_ by Judith Wallerstein, et al? She comes to this conclusion by doing long term case studies. This is also similar to the conclusions of Paul Amato and Allan Booth, sociologists at Penn State who have studied this question. Are you familiar with their work? Jayne However if both parents consider the kids needs over theirs, the divorce will not have a lasting negative effect on the kids. In some cases if both the parents cooperate (like living within walking/biking distance from each other) the kids may have an improved relationship with the parents.
Admittedly this takes two mature adults, which seem to be in short supply these days.

No! No! Say it isn't so! That it's just our imagination, Jayne. Lets's
try to restore our faith in humanity!

Rauni wrote: On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 18:24:01 -0500, "Jayne Kulikauskas" <momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote: "Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:iNPpb.103972$Fm2.88393@attbi_s04... [] As far as the kids, consider the hypothesis that going through a divorce might be better for them than having a really poor model for a marriage. According to what I've been reading about the effects of divorce, this is unlikely to be true. In general, children are better off with good parents in a bad marriage than having to deal with divorce. Jayne It's only untrue if either the parents use the kids as a bargaining chip or to get back at the other spouse. If the parents are mature and are willing to co-operate the kids can still see each parent everyday.

It's NOT the divorce that's the deal breaker with the kids, so much as it is
the quality of the RELATIONSHIP that exists between the husband, wife, and the
kids - and how stressful THAT is.

Whichever way is least stressful - least argumentive - least adversial - is the
best for the kids. The divorce itself is secondary in importance to this.

Woops. I meant you, Rauni. Sorry. Corrected below....

Bill in Co. wrote: Rauni wrote: On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 22:24:11 -0500, "Jayne Kulikauskas" <momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote: "Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:jbYpb.79039$275.218742@attbi_s53...> "Jayne Kulikauskas" <momkulio@yahoo.ca> writes:>>> "Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message>> news:iNPpb.103972$Fm2.88393@attbi_s04...>>>> []>>> As far as the kids, consider the hypothesis that going through a
divorce>>> might be better for them than having a really poor model for a marriage.>>>> According to what I've been reading about the effects of divorce, this is>> unlikely to be true. In general, children are better off with good>> parents in a bad marriage than having to deal with divorce.>> Well, lots of people say this, so it is easy to read it.>> I've yet to see one source that presents any decent evidence for it.>> One of the problems is that it is very difficult to obtain such> evidence. You'd have to compare similar families where one group of> couples decided to divorce, and the other group of couples decided to> stay in bad marriages for the sake of the children.>> Note the obvious flaw here: there is a big difference between the> couples who decide to divorce vs. the couples who decide to stay> together for the children. So you are already comparing quite> disparate groups. Have you seen _The Unexpected Legacy of Divorce_ by Judith Wallerstein, et al? She comes to this conclusion by doing long term case studies. This is also similar to the conclusions of Paul Amato and Allan Booth,
sociologists at Penn State who have studied this question. Are you familiar with their work? Jayne However if both parents consider the kids needs over theirs, the divorce will not have a lasting negative effect on the kids. In some cases if both the parents cooperate (like living within walking/biking distance from each other) the kids may have an improved relationship with the parents. Admittedly this takes two mature adults, which seem to be in short supply these days. No! No! Say it isn't so! That it's just our imagination, Rauni. Lets's try to restore our faith in humanity!

On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 05:36:14 GMT, "Bill in Co."
<ornery1@earthlink.net> wrote:
Rauni wrote: On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 18:24:01 -0500, "Jayne Kulikauskas" <momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote: "Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:iNPpb.103972$Fm2.88393@attbi_s04... []> As far as the kids, consider the hypothesis that going through a divorce> might be better for them than having a really poor model for a marriage. According to what I've been reading about the effects of divorce, this is unlikely to be true. In general, children are better off with good parents in a bad marriage than having to deal with divorce. Jayne It's only untrue if either the parents use the kids as a bargaining chip or to get back at the other spouse. If the parents are mature and are willing to co-operate the kids can still see each parent everyday.It's NOT the divorce that's the deal breaker with the kids, so much as it isthe quality of the RELATIONSHIP that exists between the husband, wife, and thekids - and how stressful THAT is.Whichever way is least stressful - least argumentive - least adversial - is thebest for the kids. The divorce itself is secondary in importance to this.
In my daughter's case her relationship *improved* with her Dad because
he had to put in the time with her. When we were living together I did
all the child care.

I chose to live within walking distance from my ex husband and my
daughter got to see her dad and myself everyday.

On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 06:04:57 GMT, "Bill in Co."
<ornery1@earthlink.net> wrote:
Woops. I meant you, Rauni. Sorry. Corrected below....
Heh I figured that......Bill in Co. wrote: Rauni wrote: On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 22:24:11 -0500, "Jayne Kulikauskas" <momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote:>> "Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message> news:jbYpb.79039$275.218742@attbi_s53...>> "Jayne Kulikauskas" <momkulio@yahoo.ca> writes:>>>>> "Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message>>> news:iNPpb.103972$Fm2.88393@attbi_s04...>>>>>> []>>>> As far as the kids, consider the hypothesis that going through adivorce>>>> might be better for them than having a really poor model for a marriage.>>>>>> According to what I've been reading about the effects of divorce, this is>>> unlikely to be true. In general, children are better off with good>>> parents in a bad marriage than having to deal with divorce.>>>> Well, lots of people say this, so it is easy to read it.>>>> I've yet to see one source that presents any decent evidence for it.>>>> One of the problems is that it is very difficult to obtain such>> evidence. You'd have to compare similar families where one group of>> couples decided to divorce, and the other group of couples decided to>> stay in bad marriages for the sake of the children.>>>> Note the obvious flaw here: there is a big difference between the>> couples who decide to divorce vs. the couples who decide to stay>> together for the children. So you are already comparing quite>> disparate groups.>> Have you seen _The Unexpected Legacy of Divorce_ by Judith Wallerstein, et> al? She comes to this conclusion by doing long term case studies. This is> also similar to the conclusions of Paul Amato and Allan Booth,sociologists> at Penn State who have studied this question. Are you familiar with their> work?>> Jayne> However if both parents consider the kids needs over theirs, the divorce will not have a lasting negative effect on the kids. In some cases if both the parents cooperate (like living within walking/biking distance from each other) the kids may have an improved relationship with the parents. Admittedly this takes two mature adults, which seem to be in short supply these days. No! No! Say it isn't so! That it's just our imagination, Rauni. Lets's try to restore our faith in humanity!

Rauni wrote: On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 05:36:14 GMT, "Bill in Co." <ornery1@earthlink.net> wrote: Rauni wrote: On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 18:24:01 -0500, "Jayne Kulikauskas" <momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote:>> "Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message> news:iNPpb.103972$Fm2.88393@attbi_s04...>> []>> As far as the kids, consider the hypothesis that going through a divorce>> might be better for them than having a really poor model for a marriage.>> According to what I've been reading about the effects of divorce, this is> unlikely to be true. In general, children are better off with good
parents> in a bad marriage than having to deal with divorce.>> Jayne> It's only untrue if either the parents use the kids as a bargaining chip or to get back at the other spouse. If the parents are mature and are willing to co-operate the kids can still see each parent everyday. It's NOT the divorce that's the deal breaker with the kids, so much as it is the quality of the RELATIONSHIP that exists between the husband, wife, and the kids - and how stressful THAT is. Whichever way is least stressful - least argumentive - least adversial - is the best for the kids. The divorce itself is secondary in importance to this. In my daughter's case her relationship *improved* with her Dad because he had to put in the time with her. When we were living together I did all the child care.

I think I can relate to that, too. It's kind of ironic the way this worked
out. But now I'm more of an "equal contender", so to speak - getting closer
to my daughter. It was a bit difficult for me to "compete" when we were
married.

On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 19:36:07 GMT, "Bill in Co."
<ornery1@earthlink.net> wrote:
Rauni wrote: On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 05:36:14 GMT, "Bill in Co." <ornery1@earthlink.net> wrote: Rauni wrote:> On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 18:24:01 -0500, "Jayne Kulikauskas"> <momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote:>>>>> "Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message>> news:iNPpb.103972$Fm2.88393@attbi_s04...>>>> []>>> As far as the kids, consider the hypothesis that going through a divorce>>> might be better for them than having a really poor model for a marriage.>>>> According to what I've been reading about the effects of divorce, this is>> unlikely to be true. In general, children are better off with goodparents>> in a bad marriage than having to deal with divorce.>>>> Jayne>>> It's only untrue if either the parents use the kids as a bargaining> chip or to get back at the other spouse. If the parents are mature> and are willing to co-operate the kids can still see each parent> everyday. It's NOT the divorce that's the deal breaker with the kids, so much as it is the quality of the RELATIONSHIP that exists between the husband, wife, and the kids - and how stressful THAT is. Whichever way is least stressful - least argumentive - least adversial - is the best for the kids. The divorce itself is secondary in importance to this. In my daughter's case her relationship *improved* with her Dad because he had to put in the time with her. When we were living together I did all the child care.I think I can relate to that, too. It's kind of ironic the way this workedout. But now I'm more of an "equal contender", so to speak - getting closerto my daughter. It was a bit difficult for me to "compete" when we weremarried.
Yeah I can see that. As it turned out my daughter adored her Dad. He
was an incredible father. One of the reasons she chose to join the
military was her dad.

IMO.. how the children handle.live through a divorce.. depends a lot on how
the parents handle the divorce

my X and I .. remain friends..the needs of the kids come above our own..even
now.

We never put the kids in the middle..and we have never said bad things about
the other person to the kids.

they came through it relatively unscarred..as far as I can tell...both my X
and I are in other relations ( I am married he has a GF)..we both are
living happy productive lives.. separately but still co-parenting...my kids
are great students.. very upright citizens..and still have a healthy outlook
on life and relationships

I can see how different that would/could be if my X and I had a long drawn
out battle in the end

Kass
"Jayne Kulikauskas" <momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:bo9cal$1bjjci$1@ID-141597.news.uni-berlin.de... "Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:iNPpb.103972$Fm2.88393@attbi_s04... [] As far as the kids, consider the hypothesis that going through a
divorce might be better for them than having a really poor model for a marriage. According to what I've been reading about the effects of divorce, this is unlikely to be true. In general, children are better off with good
parents in a bad marriage than having to deal with divorce. Jayne

Truer words were never spoken. I would even go further, and say it depends
PRIMARILY on how the parents handle the divorce (and all the concurrent
feelings and interactions that go along with it).

whisper wrote: IMO.. how the children handle.live through a divorce.. depends a lot on how the parents handle the divorce my X and I .. remain friends..the needs of the kids come above our own..even now. We never put the kids in the middle..and we have never said bad things about the other person to the kids. they came through it relatively unscarred..as far as I can tell...both my X and I are in other relations ( I am married he has a GF)..we both are living happy productive lives.. separately but still co-parenting...my kids are great students.. very upright citizens..and still have a healthy outlook on life and relationships I can see how different that would/could be if my X and I had a long drawn out battle in the end Kass "Jayne Kulikauskas" <momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote in message news:bo9cal$1bjjci$1@ID-141597.news.uni-berlin.de... "Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:iNPpb.103972$Fm2.88393@attbi_s04... [] As far as the kids, consider the hypothesis that going through a divorce might be better for them than having a really poor model for a marriage. According to what I've been reading about the effects of divorce, this is unlikely to be true. In general, children are better off with good parents in a bad marriage than having to deal with divorce. Jayne

On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 22:13:20 GMT, "Bill in Co."
<ornery1@earthlink.net> wrote:
Truer words were never spoken. I would even go further, and say it dependsPRIMARILY on how the parents handle the divorce (and all the concurrentfeelings and interactions that go along with it).

Exactly. I know my daughter was horrified when she went to a wedding
of an ex boyfriend (he was like a second Dad to her so they remained
close even after we stopped dating) of mine and his mother did not
attend because her ex husband would be there. That was something she
had no concept as her dad and I attend every teacher conference
together every concert she was in and every soccer game. And we always
sat together.whisper wrote: IMO.. how the children handle.live through a divorce.. depends a lot on how the parents handle the divorce my X and I .. remain friends..the needs of the kids come above our own..even now. We never put the kids in the middle..and we have never said bad things about the other person to the kids. they came through it relatively unscarred..as far as I can tell...both my X and I are in other relations ( I am married he has a GF)..we both are living happy productive lives.. separately but still co-parenting...my kids are great students.. very upright citizens..and still have a healthy outlook on life and relationships I can see how different that would/could be if my X and I had a long drawn out battle in the end Kass "Jayne Kulikauskas" <momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote in message news:bo9cal$1bjjci$1@ID-141597.news.uni-berlin.de... "Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:iNPpb.103972$Fm2.88393@attbi_s04... []> As far as the kids, consider the hypothesis that going through a divorce> might be better for them than having a really poor model for a marriage. According to what I've been reading about the effects of divorce, this is unlikely to be true. In general, children are better off with good parents in a bad marriage than having to deal with divorce. Jayne

Am I understanding this right? The mother of the son would not go to HER OWN
SON'S wedding, because her ex husband was going to be there? {or insert ANY
reason...} You MUST be kidding. I don't think I can fathom this, either.

Rauni wrote: On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 22:13:20 GMT, "Bill in Co." <ornery1@earthlink.net> wrote: Truer words were never spoken. I would even go further, and say it
depends PRIMARILY on how the parents handle the divorce (and all the concurrent feelings and interactions that go along with it). Exactly. I know my daughter was horrified when she went to a wedding of an ex boyfriend (he was like a second Dad to her so they remained close even after we stopped dating) of mine and his mother did not attend because her ex husband would be there. That was something she had no concept as her dad and I attend every teacher conference together every concert she was in and every soccer game. And we always sat together. whisper wrote: IMO.. how the children handle.live through a divorce.. depends a lot on how the parents handle the divorce my X and I .. remain friends..the needs of the kids come above our
own..even now. We never put the kids in the middle..and we have never said bad things
about the other person to the kids. they came through it relatively unscarred..as far as I can tell...both my X and I are in other relations ( I am married he has a GF)..we both are living happy productive lives.. separately but still co-parenting...my kids are great students.. very upright citizens..and still have a healthy
outlook on life and relationships I can see how different that would/could be if my X and I had a long drawn out battle in the end Kass "Jayne Kulikauskas" <momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote in message news:bo9cal$1bjjci$1@ID-141597.news.uni-berlin.de...>> "Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message> news:iNPpb.103972$Fm2.88393@attbi_s04...>> []>> As far as the kids, consider the hypothesis that going through a divorce>> might be better for them than having a really poor model for a marriage.>> According to what I've been reading about the effects of divorce, this is> unlikely to be true. In general, children are better off with good
parents> in a bad marriage than having to deal with divorce.>> Jayne

"Bill in Co." <ornery1@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:fzhqb.2307$Z25.1280@newsread4.news.pas.earthl ink.net... Am I understanding this right? The mother of the son would not go to HER
OWN SON'S wedding, because her ex husband was going to be there? {or insert
ANY reason...} You MUST be kidding. I don't think I can fathom this,
either.

It happens a lot. My brother in laws parents are like this. Weddings,
funerals, it doesn't matter. My BIL's mother will NOT go if her ex and "she"
is there (she being the one he left her for). Some people are idiots.

On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 01:35:07 GMT, "Bill in Co."
<ornery1@earthlink.net> wrote:
Am I understanding this right? The mother of the son would not go to HER OWNSON'S wedding, because her ex husband was going to be there? {or insert ANYreason...} You MUST be kidding. I don't think I can fathom this, either.

I wish I was kidding. It's true.

Rauni wrote: On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 22:13:20 GMT, "Bill in Co." <ornery1@earthlink.net> wrote: Truer words were never spoken. I would even go further, and say itdepends PRIMARILY on how the parents handle the divorce (and all the concurrent feelings and interactions that go along with it). Exactly. I know my daughter was horrified when she went to a wedding of an ex boyfriend (he was like a second Dad to her so they remained close even after we stopped dating) of mine and his mother did not attend because her ex husband would be there. That was something she had no concept as her dad and I attend every teacher conference together every concert she was in and every soccer game. And we always sat together. whisper wrote:> IMO.. how the children handle.live through a divorce.. depends a lot on how> the parents handle the divorce>> my X and I .. remain friends..the needs of the kids come above ourown..even> now.>> We never put the kids in the middle..and we have never said bad thingsabout> the other person to the kids.>> they came through it relatively unscarred..as far as I can tell...both my X> and I are in other relations ( I am married he has a GF)..we both are> living happy productive lives.. separately but still co-parenting...my kids> are great students.. very upright citizens..and still have a healthyoutlook> on life and relationships>> I can see how different that would/could be if my X and I had a long drawn> out battle in the end>> Kass> "Jayne Kulikauskas" <momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote in message> news:bo9cal$1bjjci$1@ID-141597.news.uni-berlin.de...>>>> "Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message>> news:iNPpb.103972$Fm2.88393@attbi_s04...>>>> []>>> As far as the kids, consider the hypothesis that going through a divorce>>> might be better for them than having a really poor model for a marriage.>>>> According to what I've been reading about the effects of divorce, this is>> unlikely to be true. In general, children are better off with goodparents>> in a bad marriage than having to deal with divorce.>>>> Jayne

On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 02:15:03 GMT, "JWB" <jwbSPAMBEGONE3333@excite.com>
wrote:
"Bill in Co." <ornery1@earthlink.net> wrote in messagenews:fzhqb.2307$Z25.1280@newsread4.news.pas .earthlink.net... Am I understanding this right? The mother of the son would not go to HEROWN SON'S wedding, because her ex husband was going to be there? {or insertANY reason...} You MUST be kidding. I don't think I can fathom this,either.It happens a lot. My brother in laws parents are like this. Weddings,funerals, it doesn't matter. My BIL's mother will NOT go if her ex and "she"is there (she being the one he left her for). Some people are idiots.
I simply don't understand this kind of animosity. My ex may have not
been a good husband but he was a fantastic father. Of I carried around
this kind of hatred I would have deprived my daughter of a great Dad.
And she just adored him.

Bill in Co. <ornery1@earthlink.net> wrote: Am I understanding this right? The mother of the son would not go to HER OWN SON'S wedding, because her ex husband was going to be there? {or insert ANY reason...} You MUST be kidding. I don't think I can fathom this, either.

A friend of my wife's is getting married sometime next year and is dealing
with that (very acrimonious divorce between her parents, including
revelations of affairs on both sides) and both her mother and maternal
grandparents are threatening to not attend if her father does.

On Wed, 5 Nov 2003 18:52:44 -0800, trajan@sfchat.org (Marcus Ulpius
Traianus) wrote:
Bill in Co. <ornery1@earthlink.net> wrote: Am I understanding this right? The mother of the son would not go to HER OWN SON'S wedding, because her ex husband was going to be there? {or insert ANY reason...} You MUST be kidding. I don't think I can fathom this, either.A friend of my wife's is getting married sometime next year and is dealingwith that (very acrimonious divorce between her parents, includingrevelations of affairs on both sides) and both her mother and maternalgrandparents are threatening to not attend if her father does.

Tell your wife's friend to elope and save the money that would have
been spent on a big acrimonious wedding and use it as a down on their
new home.

I've had two wedding the big one sucked I didn;t know half the people
ther my sister got so drunk she threw up my dad and my uncle were
drunk. Yuck

When I married my second husband we got married by the county clerk at
the local library. They had a graden with a gazebo in the back. It was
so nice!!

Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Jayne Kulikauskas" <momkulio@yahoo.ca> writes: "Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:iNPpb.103972$Fm2.88393@attbi_s04... [] As far as the kids, consider the hypothesis that going through a divorce might be better for them than having a really poor model for a marriage. According to what I've been reading about the effects of divorce, this is unlikely to be true. In general, children are better off with good parents in a bad marriage than having to deal with divorce. Well, lots of people say this, so it is easy to read it. I've yet to see one source that presents any decent evidence for it. One of the problems is that it is very difficult to obtain such evidence. You'd have to compare similar families where one group of couples decided to divorce, and the other group of couples decided to stay in bad marriages for the sake of the children. Note the obvious flaw here: there is a big difference between the couples who decide to divorce vs. the couples who decide to stay together for the children. So you are already comparing quite disparate groups.

I agree with Doug. Last time I checked, there were no good studies with
anything approximating a control group (unhappy marriages that stayed
together compared to *equally* unhappy marriages that ended). I do
believe staying together is better if you can scrape together even a
pretty good marriage, and that you owe it to your kids to put every
reasonable effort into doing so. But this is just my opinion.

Emma Anne <mbjq@earthlink.net> wrote: I agree with Doug. Last time I checked, there were no good studies with anything approximating a control group (unhappy marriages that stayed together compared to *equally* unhappy marriages that ended). I do believe staying together is better if you can scrape together even a pretty good marriage, and that you owe it to your kids to put every reasonable effort into doing so. But this is just my opinion.

The problem with calling _any_ of this science is that you can't really
quantify it. How do you determine an "equally unhappy marriage?"

You can do a lot of interesting longitudinal studies and get nice
_qualitative_ results that may not apply to anyone except the people being
studied, but broad-based statistical studies on this sort of topic are
highly suspect.

"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Fl_pb.109603$Fm2.96125@attbi_s04...
One of the problems is that it is very difficult to obtain such evidence. You'd have to compare similar families where one group of couples decided to divorce, and the other group of couples decided to stay in bad marriages for the sake of the children. Note the obvious flaw here: there is a big difference between the couples who decide to divorce vs. the couples who decide to stay together for the children. So you are already comparing quite disparate groups. Have you seen _The Unexpected Legacy of Divorce_ by Judith Wallerstein,
et al? She comes to this conclusion by doing long term case studies. Yes, and her work suffers from _precisely_ the flaw I mentioned.

Wasn't it also a very small study, and not really representative of the
population? In addition to demographics and the issue you already raised,
my comment would be that it is difficult - maybe impossible- to separate the
effect of the divorce on the children from the effect of the bad marriage
that led to the divorce on children. My personal experience leads me to
think that the bad marriage is the actual root of many of the problems that
people tend to blame on the divorce....

"Jayne Kulikauskas" <momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:bo9qcv$1c4a1o$1@ID-141597.news.uni-berlin.de...
Have you seen _The Unexpected Legacy of Divorce_ by Judith Wallerstein, et al? She comes to this conclusion by doing long term case studies. This
is also similar to the conclusions of Paul Amato and Allan Booth,
sociologists at Penn State who have studied this question. Are you familiar with their work? Jayne

It has been a long time since I read anything regarding Wallerstein's book,
but I remembered that a lot of people thought it was a flawed study. I did
just find the following reference, which sums up what I recall about that:

http://www.4children.org/news/198coon.htm

In my case, I stayed married years and years longer than I should have, in
part *because* I had read things like Wallerstein's study that said divorce
was bad for kids. I should have read things about how a bad marriage was
bad for kids, because in retrospect it was a huge mistake for me to stay in
the marriage. I did so for the best of motives - after all, two parent
homes were "supposed" to be best for kids - but in reality, as the years
rolled by the damage just got greater. Even my kids say I should have
divorced years earlier.

"Joy" <fairly_happy_doesn't_need_any_more_spam@withoutspa myahoo.com> writes:
"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:Fl_pb.109603$Fm2.96125@attbi_s04... > > One of the problems is that it is very difficult to obtain such > evidence. You'd have to compare similar families where one group of > couples decided to divorce, and the other group of couples decided to > stay in bad marriages for the sake of the children. > > Note the obvious flaw here: there is a big difference between the > couples who decide to divorce vs. the couples who decide to stay > together for the children. So you are already comparing quite > disparate groups. Have you seen _The Unexpected Legacy of Divorce_ by Judith Wallerstein, et al? She comes to this conclusion by doing long term case studies. Yes, and her work suffers from _precisely_ the flaw I mentioned. Wasn't it also a very small study, and not really representative of the population?

Yes. I think it involved a little over 100 children (or maybe a
little over a hundred families). And all from Marin County.
In addition to demographics and the issue you already raised, my comment would be that it is difficult - maybe impossible- to separate the effect of the divorce on the children from the effect of the bad marriage that led to the divorce on children. My personal experience leads me to think that the bad marriage is the actual root of many of the problems that people tend to blame on the divorce....

This is what I also suspect based on people I know. Though I've never
experienced any end of a divorce personally.

There is another issue with this book also. She follows a large group
of people. Some have decent lives, others don't. Some of the ones
who have lives they are unhappy with blame it on divorce. Of course
many people are quite good at externalizing blame - and their parents
have provided them with a nice big target.

On Sat, 08 Nov 2003 05:09:36 GMT, Doug Anderson
<ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Joy" <fairly_happy_doesn't_need_any_more_spam@withoutspa myahoo.com> writes: "Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:Fl_pb.109603$Fm2.96125@attbi_s04... > > > > One of the problems is that it is very difficult to obtain such > > evidence. You'd have to compare similar families where one group of > > couples decided to divorce, and the other group of couples decided to > > stay in bad marriages for the sake of the children. > > > > Note the obvious flaw here: there is a big difference between the > > couples who decide to divorce vs. the couples who decide to stay > > together for the children. So you are already comparing quite > > disparate groups. > > Have you seen _The Unexpected Legacy of Divorce_ by Judith Wallerstein, et > al? She comes to this conclusion by doing long term case studies. Yes, and her work suffers from _precisely_ the flaw I mentioned. Wasn't it also a very small study, and not really representative of the population?Yes. I think it involved a little over 100 children (or maybe alittle over a hundred families). And all from Marin County.

If any researcher "hand-selects" a sample, the results are only valid
for that sample. distribution. His results CAN NOT be generalized to
the population. In addition to demographics and the issue you already raised, my comment would be that it is difficult - maybe impossible- to separate the effect of the divorce on the children from the effect of the bad marriage that led to the divorce on children. My personal experience leads me to think that the bad marriage is the actual root of many of the problems that people tend to blame on the divorce....This is what I also suspect based on people I know. Though I've neverexperienced any end of a divorce personally.There is another issue with this book also. She follows a large groupof people. Some have decent lives, others don't. Some of the oneswho have lives they are unhappy with blame it on divorce. Of coursemany people are quite good at externalizing blame - and their parentshave provided them with a nice big target.

Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote:
There is another issue with this book also. She follows a large group of people. Some have decent lives, others don't. Some of the ones who have lives they are unhappy with blame it on divorce. Of course many people are quite good at externalizing blame - and their parents have provided them with a nice big target.

There's yet another possible issue here - some of personality is
heritable. People who get divorced are more likely to have unhappy
children simply by genetics.