what's the worst affair story you've heard of where the marriage recovered?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:YOU have no idea what you're talking about, nor do you know the players. First, I said nothing speculative about anyone's primary motivations! But the anecdote shows someone in a terrible situation being kind, correct?

The Thai woman - if she's human, is it not reasonable to wonder how she felt giving up her daughter?

Since you want to posit without having the ovaries to just SAY it, that the Thai woman is a monster who didn't care about the daughter anyway (which one cannot know), please get some therapeutic help. And learn to focus your obvious anger on the man (men?) who hurt you.

You don't understand what I am trying to say. You think the wife is being kind. What I'm telling you is that her actions may have the effect of kindness toward the other child. But that's not what drives her. What drives her is the good of her marriage and family. The child, independently of her marriage and family, is simply not a factor to her. She isn't doing what she's doing "for the good of the child." She concluded, based on her own reasons, that her marriage and family has the highest chance of surviving if the child is integrated vs. left behind. That's why she acts the way she acts.

I don't think women who give up their children are monsters, women give up their kids for adoption or leave custody to fathers every day around the world. Not all women have the primordial desire to rear their own.

How could you possibly know that? If I were in this situation my primary motivation would be the innocent child that chose none of this. I think it says something about you that you literally cannot comprehend two adults choosing to put the well being of a child before their own. I would certainly hate to have you as a step parent that's for sure.

No one can know anything about this situation, we can only theorize. Your theory is as good as mine. I don't want any stepchildren so we are aligned on that account.

It's not that I can't comprehend it, it's that I don't think it's natural or common. If I were in this situation, my primary motivation would be MY innocent children who didn't choose any of this either. And the wife is also innocent. So these two innocents come first, and everyone else should get in line. As for me, I would not put the wellbeing of someone else's child before my children's or my own. My children come first because that's my job, I come next because my children need me, everyone else gets in line and gets whatever is left.

I also think that you would not put the wellbeing of someone else's child before your own if the cost of this was the ruination of your family or damage to your own children. You are just saying this because you never faced that choice.

I am a child of an acrimonious divorce. So I do have some idea what would motivate me in a situation like this. I agree that I would probably not put my own child's well being in danger but I think it would take a lot to make me believe that bringing more love and family into my own child's live would constitute 'danger'. All of this presupposes that I would work it out with my husband, which I'm not sure I would. But I would, without a shadow of a doubt, show nothing but kindness and compassion and welcome to a child who came into the situation through no fault of their own. And that would, in the end, be what was best for my own child as well. Maybe that manifests when the child visits us, maybe that is for when I see the child at family events I attend post divorce, or maybe it is when I have the child move into the house permanently when my theoretical husband and I work it out. Regardless, my heart is open to an innocent child, regardless of how closed it is to the child's biological parents.

You basically admit in your post here that you believe it isn't natural because it isn't what YOU would do. I am fully aware that people like you exist and it would not surprise me at all to hear about a woman who treated a child born in these circumstances like dirt. It would make me sad but it wouldn't shock me and I wouldn't find it unbelievable. The fact that you can only see your own natural inclinations as 'natural' says more about you than anyone else commenting on this thread. The fact that you don't add this other child to your list of 'innocents' says a lot about you too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
I am a child of an acrimonious divorce. So I do have some idea what would motivate me in a situation like this. I agree that I would probably not put my own child's well being in danger but I think it would take a lot to make me believe that bringing more love and family into my own child's live would constitute 'danger'. All of this presupposes that I would work it out with my husband, which I'm not sure I would. But I would, without a shadow of a doubt, show nothing but kindness and compassion and welcome to a child who came into the situation through no fault of their own. And that would, in the end, be what was best for my own child as well. Maybe that manifests when the child visits us, maybe that is for when I see the child at family events I attend post divorce, or maybe it is when I have the child move into the house permanently when my theoretical husband and I work it out. Regardless, my heart is open to an innocent child, regardless of how closed it is to the child's biological parents.

You basically admit in your post here that you believe it isn't natural because it isn't what YOU would do. I am fully aware that people like you exist and it would not surprise me at all to hear about a woman who treated a child born in these circumstances like dirt. It would make me sad but it wouldn't shock me and I wouldn't find it unbelievable. The fact that you can only see your own natural inclinations as 'natural' says more about you than anyone else commenting on this thread. The fact that you don't add this other child to your list of 'innocents' says a lot about you too.

You misunderstand, or choose to see this situation through the Lifetime Television for Women lens. No one said anything about treating the child like dirt or hurting the child. There is a world of difference between treating the child like dirt and saying to yourself, the process through which this child has come about has damaged my family and my emotional health, perhaps irreparably, and can continue to bring turmoil to my life, therefore I choose to have nothing to do with this child, and limit my contact with him or her as much as possible. The expectation that the wife should love or care for the child her husband fathered outside of marriage, taking time and energy away from his original family and children, is a very odd one indeed. You can be kind to the child on a rare occasion you see him or her. But you don't have to volunteer for it at all, and it says nothing bad about you if you do not. It's not about mistreating the child, it's about not volunteering for more pain.

It is natural that your own children should come first to you. It is unnatural if they do not. Yes, that child is innocent but so are your own children, and they come first.

You are also being romantic when you describe this through the prism of "bringing more love and family to my children's life." Why don't you talk to children of the marriage who have been through this? You'll find out that outside children have brought many more things to their life, in addition to "love and family." Like shock and confusion. Toxic secrets. Insecurity. Competition. Envy. Embarrassment with peers and relatives. Loss of respect for the father (for doing this), and for the mother (for putting up with this.) Bad lessons and relationship risks learned by both boys (you can treat women this way), and girls (this is what men do and women must put up with this). If affairs and outside children result in divorce and breakdown of family for the children of marriage, multiply all of this by five. It's quite a bit more involved and wretched than the kumbaya chorus you envisage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I am a child of an acrimonious divorce. So I do have some idea what would motivate me in a situation like this. I agree that I would probably not put my own child's well being in danger but I think it would take a lot to make me believe that bringing more love and family into my own child's live would constitute 'danger'. All of this presupposes that I would work it out with my husband, which I'm not sure I would. But I would, without a shadow of a doubt, show nothing but kindness and compassion and welcome to a child who came into the situation through no fault of their own. And that would, in the end, be what was best for my own child as well. Maybe that manifests when the child visits us, maybe that is for when I see the child at family events I attend post divorce, or maybe it is when I have the child move into the house permanently when my theoretical husband and I work it out. Regardless, my heart is open to an innocent child, regardless of how closed it is to the child's biological parents.

You basically admit in your post here that you believe it isn't natural because it isn't what YOU would do. I am fully aware that people like you exist and it would not surprise me at all to hear about a woman who treated a child born in these circumstances like dirt. It would make me sad but it wouldn't shock me and I wouldn't find it unbelievable. The fact that you can only see your own natural inclinations as 'natural' says more about you than anyone else commenting on this thread. The fact that you don't add this other child to your list of 'innocents' says a lot about you too.

You misunderstand, or choose to see this situation through the Lifetime Television for Women lens. No one said anything about treating the child like dirt or hurting the child. There is a world of difference between treating the child like dirt and saying to yourself, the process through which this child has come about has damaged my family and my emotional health, perhaps irreparably, and can continue to bring turmoil to my life, therefore I choose to have nothing to do with this child, and limit my contact with him or her as much as possible. The expectation that the wife should love or care for the child her husband fathered outside of marriage, taking time and energy away from his original family and children, is a very odd one indeed. You can be kind to the child on a rare occasion you see him or her. But you don't have to volunteer for it at all, and it says nothing bad about you if you do not. It's not about mistreating the child, it's about not volunteering for more pain.

It is natural that your own children should come first to you. It is unnatural if they do not. Yes, that child is innocent but so are your own children, and they come first.

You are also being romantic when you describe this through the prism of "bringing more love and family to my children's life." Why don't you talk to children of the marriage who have been through this? You'll find out that outside children have brought many more things to their life, in addition to "love and family." Like shock and confusion. Toxic secrets. Insecurity. Competition. Envy. Embarrassment with peers and relatives. Loss of respect for the father (for doing this), and for the mother (for putting up with this.) Bad lessons and relationship risks learned by both boys (you can treat women this way), and girls (this is what men do and women must put up with this). If affairs and outside children result in divorce and breakdown of family for the children of marriage, multiply all of this by five. It's quite a bit more involved and wretched than the kumbaya chorus you envisage.

IMO the things I bolded above come from how the PARENTS deal with this situation when it arises. That isn't seeing things through a 'lifetime movie lens' but I am beginning to think you are just thinking of ways to sound offensively condescending to bring people into these pointless arguments because you're bored.

Scenario: My husband has a child out of wedlock. IMO the choices are not exactly the ones described earlier, for me they would be:

1) Divorce, but treat the child as a true sibling to my child. Welcome them when I see them, treat them with kindness, make them feel like family.
2) Stay together, with a lot of effort and work. Have some type of visitation schedule where I welcome the child when I see them, treat them with kindness and make them feel like family.
3) Stay together, with a lot of work and effort. Be the child's primary home where I would welcome them and treat them with kindness and make them feel like family.
4) Divorce or stay together and the mother decides to keep the child to herself and not allow it regular contact with the father. In this case, I tell my children that this child exists, I don't pretend they don't have a sibling. I don't pretend a human being doesn't exist.

In scenario 1, 2, 4 I feel like you cannot keep the father's infidelity a secret. So the kids get sat down and explained in broad terms what has happened. The conversation is likely emotional, but not accusatory, kids are the focus. Explained what this will mean for them in practical terms.

In scenario 3 they never hear about the infidelity. We 'adopted' a new kid.

Its hard for people on this board to understand this mindset. I see it in all the posts of bitter people in the middle of or at the beginning of or in the aftermath of divorce. But if you divorce with children and you make it your primary goal to get THEM through the process unscathed, which is what should be the case since they are the innocents in that scenario, then they will make it through and learn the right lessons. The right lessons being:

1) Stick up for yourself
2) Forgiveness is important whether you stay or go
3) Sticking up for yourself and forgiveness are not mutually exclusive and don't necessarily mean staying together
4) Children are the most important people in a divorce and their happiness and stability should be the number 1 priority of both parents

In my opinion, treating a sibling of my children like they don't exist or meanly is detrimental to my children's understanding of compassion, family and being a decent human being. That seems to not be the case for you. You misunderstood my post because you seem to think erasing their existence is not treating them poorly. IMO, it is. When I chose to have children with my husband, I chose to be entangled with him and his choices forever. Not necessarily under the same roof, but to an extent we are inextricably intertwined. I will believe that and live that so my children will be happy and well adjusted no matter the state of their parents.

[Anonymous]

I love a woman who uses "Lifetime Television for Women" as her go-to insult. You know what you need to do? SAFEGUARD YOUR OWN MARRIAGE. You are nasty as all hell and I am sure if you are actually IN a marriage, you KNOW he isn't into you at all anymore - and you have earned it.

PP, thanks for pointing out that the half-Thai child is not an 'innocent' in this beast's estimation. Telling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
IMO the things I bolded above come from how the PARENTS deal with this situation when it arises. That isn't seeing things through a 'lifetime movie lens' but I am beginning to think you are just thinking of ways to sound offensively condescending to bring people into these pointless arguments because you're bored.

No they don't. They come from the children of broken marriages, and I am surprised that as a child of an acrimonious divorce, you refuse to acknowledge it. Parents will deal with their own.

Shock and confusion: what do you mean another sibling? Like not with mommy? But I thought you're only supposed to have kids with mommy? Toxic secrets: see option 3, where you blithely suggest infidelity does not have to be mentioned at all. You think children are stupid? They can't put two and two together? They'll never see the child's birth certificate? Or well-meaning strangers won't talk to them? Insecurity - so daddy doesn't love me? I'm not enough? Of course you are. But then why did he make children with not-mommy? Competition - who do you love more? What do you mean there's no money for us to go on vacation any more? Envy - why is daddy going there and not staying with me? Embarrassment with peers and relatives - hey, aren't you the kid whose father cheated and had a child with someone else? Thought you guys were an upstanding family? Loss of respect for the father (for doing this). Why did daddy have to do this? So men do this? They can't be trusted can they?

Anonymous wrote:
Scenario: My husband has a child out of wedlock. IMO the choices are not exactly the ones described earlier, for me they would be:

1) Divorce, but treat the child as a true sibling to my child. Welcome them when I see them, treat them with kindness, make them feel like family.

If you divorce, you don't really have to see them.

Anonymous wrote:
2) Stay together, with a lot of effort and work. Have some type of visitation schedule where I welcome the child when I see them, treat them with kindness and make them feel like family.

You can, but you don't have to. And good luck winning the love of a child who wishes - just like your own kids - that daddy would stay with him all the time, and not some of the time. And supporting the relationship with your children, who in the eyes of the child have everything he wished he had, but doesn't. And seeing that your children are so much better off.

Anonymous wrote:
3) Stay together, with a lot of work and effort. Be the child's primary home where I would welcome them and treat them with kindness and make them feel like family.

Some women can deal with the constant reminder of the husband's infidelity. Some can't, and they aren't monsters. No one should be asked to carry this burden, or expected to. Marriage Builders counselors, a site referenced here with some regularity, are quite direct that in the case of pregnancy outside the marriage, the marriage has the greatest chance of survival if there is no contact with the mistress and her child. This is a natural extension of the advice on recovering from infidelity centered around "no more contact with the AP, ever" - because few marriages can deal with the strain of constant reminder of infidelity.

Anonymous wrote:
4) Divorce or stay together and the mother decides to keep the child to herself and not allow it regular contact with the father. In this case, I tell my children that this child exists, I don't pretend they don't have a sibling. I don't pretend a human being doesn't exist.

In scenario 1, 2, 4 I feel like you cannot keep the father's infidelity a secret. So the kids get sat down and explained in broad terms what has happened. The conversation is likely emotional, but not accusatory, kids are the focus. Explained what this will mean for them in practical terms.

I see you continue to pretend that this will not be a severe shocker for the kids.

In scenario 3 they never hear about the infidelity. We 'adopted' a new kid.

Talk about toxic secrets, eh.

Anonymous wrote:
Its hard for people on this board to understand this mindset. I see it in all the posts of bitter people in the middle of or at the beginning of or in the aftermath of divorce. But if you divorce with children and you make it your primary goal to get THEM through the process unscathed, which is what should be the case since they are the innocents in that scenario, then they will make it through and learn the right lessons. The right lessons being:

1) Stick up for yourself
2) Forgiveness is important whether you stay or go
3) Sticking up for yourself and forgiveness are not mutually exclusive and don't necessarily mean staying together
4) Children are the most important people in a divorce and their happiness and stability should be the number 1 priority of both parents

In my opinion, treating a sibling of my children like they don't exist or meanly is detrimental to my children's understanding of compassion, family and being a decent human being. That seems to not be the case for you. You misunderstood my post because you seem to think erasing their existence is not treating them poorly. IMO, it is. When I chose to have children with my husband, I chose to be entangled with him and his choices forever. Not necessarily under the same roof, but to an extent we are inextricably intertwined. I will believe that and live that so my children will be happy and well adjusted no matter the state of their parents.

Oh you are intertwined all right - in a sense that you and your kids will suffer from this bad choices, not that you make these choices as a team. Even when you hate his choices, even when he makes them with zero regard of their impact on you and the kids, you will still suffer.

You can treat this sibling however you like. This does not change the very fundamental truth that the existence of that sibling is a threat to your children because it blew their family apart, endangered their relationships with the people who are supposed to protect them, and most likely placed them in a worse financial situation. There is nothing - absolutely nothing good - that comes out of the "sibling outside of marriage" situation. There is no upside to it. You can spin in or damage control it all you want. It does not change the fact that this is a very bad thing that's very bad for the children of marriage, who would have been 500% better off if that sibling didn't exist and the circumstances that brought him forth never occurred.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I love a woman who uses "Lifetime Television for Women" as her go-to insult. You know what you need to do? SAFEGUARD YOUR OWN MARRIAGE. You are nasty as all hell and I am sure if you are actually IN a marriage, you KNOW he isn't into you at all anymore - and you have earned it.

PP, thanks for pointing out that the half-Thai child is not an 'innocent' in this beast's estimation. Telling.

I'm gonna paste this bit from upthread so that it's super clear to you:

"Yes, that child is innocent but so are your own children, and they come first. "

[Anonymous]

^^

When your man's finally out the door, everyone you both know is going to buy him a drink and say, 'no offense but what took you so long?'

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bill and Hillary

Donald gabbing pussies and having his way with women when married to his third wife Melania. The marriage survived.

Or so we think.

My prediction is that she will not move to DC. They are already living separate lives.

Absolutely. She signed on to live a life of luxury. Not to be the First Lady.

Whatever. The marriage did survive for whatever reasons. Donald rescued her parents from an East European country and they live in a condo that he has provided in NY Her entire family survives because he provides for them. Maybe, that was the deal for her going into the marriage. She was a struggling East European model who was old - (27 years or so), and she would get a cushy life for her family and herself if she married a much older, much married man. And I am sure that it was a good bargain for her, and it was not as if she was an 18 year old virgin. It was an arrangement and this was a business transaction. That pact has not been broken. The marriage has survived. Maybe she has no other options, but the bottom line is that there is no divorce.

You realize he's not in office yet, right? Right?

Of course the marriage has survived this far. Luxury was the point as you spelled out. She wanted her luxury which she's had. Once he's President it's a whole new game.

This is Donald Trump. The bar is very low for him and his family. She can do what she want, Ivanka will be the hostess at WH, and Melania will stay on in NY. There is no whole new game for her or him.

There is no expectation from her. Her naked pictures are all over the place, she cannot speak English and she cannot smile because of her plastic surgery. She is probably even less informed about a lot of things that even DT. So, in the end, regardless of how you all feel - she will not fail because there is no expectation from her. She is a good looking woman who bartered for her family's security. She is with him for his money and her family, he is with her because of her body. Case closed. There is no gray in this marriage and so it has endured. He has given her a son, she takes her BC regularly so that he can have sex with her whenever he wants. This is transactional but the marriage has survived because the agreements have not been broken. Each party is getting what was promised in the marriage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bill and Hillary

Donald gabbing pussies and having his way with women when married to his third wife Melania. The marriage survived.

Or so we think.

My prediction is that she will not move to DC. They are already living separate lives.

Absolutely. She signed on to live a life of luxury. Not to be the First Lady.

Whatever. The marriage did survive for whatever reasons. Donald rescued her parents from an East European country and they live in a condo that he has provided in NY Her entire family survives because he provides for them. Maybe, that was the deal for her going into the marriage. She was a struggling East European model who was old - (27 years or so), and she would get a cushy life for her family and herself if she married a much older, much married man. And I am sure that it was a good bargain for her, and it was not as if she was an 18 year old virgin. It was an arrangement and this was a business transaction. That pact has not been broken. The marriage has survived. Maybe she has no other options, but the bottom line is that there is no divorce.

You realize he's not in office yet, right? Right?

Of course the marriage has survived this far. Luxury was the point as you spelled out. She wanted her luxury which she's had. Once he's President it's a whole new game.

This is Donald Trump. The bar is very low for him and his family. She can do what she want, Ivanka will be the hostess at WH, and Melania will stay on in NY. There is no whole new game for her or him.

There is no expectation from her. Her naked pictures are all over the place, she cannot speak English and she cannot smile because of her plastic surgery. She is probably even less informed about a lot of things that even DT. So, in the end, regardless of how you all feel - she will not fail because there is no expectation from her. She is a good looking woman who bartered for her family's security. She is with him for his money and her family, he is with her because of her body. Case closed. There is no gray in this marriage and so it has endured. He has given her a son, she takes her BC regularly so that he can have sex with her whenever he wants. This is transactional but the marriage has survived because the agreements have not been broken. Each party is getting what was promised in the marriage.

There's also the possibility they are friends and care for each other. Really.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^^

When your man's finally out the door, everyone you both know is going to buy him a drink and say, 'no offense but what took you so long?'

Thanks for the reminder that women like you still rate each other on their ability to attract and retain a man, and have no independent value in each other's eyes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
There's also the possibility they are friends and care for each other. Really.

Thanks for this. I actually have thought for a long time that Trumps have a tolerably happy marriage based on explicit understanding of each other. I doubt he asks all that much of her, and she certainly doesn't ask much of him. I also think that as long as you don't bother him and do the things he cares about the way he likes (and god knows, there's enough staff around to make that possible), life with Trump is not all that bad. He's not around all that much.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
There's also the possibility they are friends and care for each other. Really.

Thanks for this. I actually have thought for a long time that Trumps have a tolerably happy marriage based on explicit understanding of each other. I doubt he asks all that much of her, and she certainly doesn't ask much of him. I also think that as long as you don't bother him and do the things he cares about the way he likes (and god knows, there's enough staff around to make that possible), life with Trump is not all that bad. He's not around all that much.

It actually seems like he is. Doesn't he usually sleep in his own bed?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
IMO the things I bolded above come from how the PARENTS deal with this situation when it arises. That isn't seeing things through a 'lifetime movie lens' but I am beginning to think you are just thinking of ways to sound offensively condescending to bring people into these pointless arguments because you're bored.

No they don't. They come from the children of broken marriages, and I am surprised that as a child of an acrimonious divorce, you refuse to acknowledge it. Parents will deal with their own.

Shock and confusion: what do you mean another sibling? Like not with mommy? But I thought you're only supposed to have kids with mommy? Toxic secrets: see option 3, where you blithely suggest infidelity does not have to be mentioned at all. You think children are stupid? They can't put two and two together? They'll never see the child's birth certificate? Or well-meaning strangers won't talk to them? Insecurity - so daddy doesn't love me? I'm not enough? Of course you are. But then why did he make children with not-mommy? Competition - who do you love more? What do you mean there's no money for us to go on vacation any more? Envy - why is daddy going there and not staying with me? Embarrassment with peers and relatives - hey, aren't you the kid whose father cheated and had a child with someone else? Thought you guys were an upstanding family? Loss of respect for the father (for doing this). Why did daddy have to do this? So men do this? They can't be trusted can they?

Anonymous wrote:
Scenario: My husband has a child out of wedlock. IMO the choices are not exactly the ones described earlier, for me they would be:

1) Divorce, but treat the child as a true sibling to my child. Welcome them when I see them, treat them with kindness, make them feel like family.

If you divorce, you don't really have to see them.

Anonymous wrote:
2) Stay together, with a lot of effort and work. Have some type of visitation schedule where I welcome the child when I see them, treat them with kindness and make them feel like family.

You can, but you don't have to. And good luck winning the love of a child who wishes - just like your own kids - that daddy would stay with him all the time, and not some of the time. And supporting the relationship with your children, who in the eyes of the child have everything he wished he had, but doesn't. And seeing that your children are so much better off.

Anonymous wrote:
3) Stay together, with a lot of work and effort. Be the child's primary home where I would welcome them and treat them with kindness and make them feel like family.

Some women can deal with the constant reminder of the husband's infidelity. Some can't, and they aren't monsters. No one should be asked to carry this burden, or expected to. Marriage Builders counselors, a site referenced here with some regularity, are quite direct that in the case of pregnancy outside the marriage, the marriage has the greatest chance of survival if there is no contact with the mistress and her child. This is a natural extension of the advice on recovering from infidelity centered around "no more contact with the AP, ever" - because few marriages can deal with the strain of constant reminder of infidelity.

Anonymous wrote:
4) Divorce or stay together and the mother decides to keep the child to herself and not allow it regular contact with the father. In this case, I tell my children that this child exists, I don't pretend they don't have a sibling. I don't pretend a human being doesn't exist.

In scenario 1, 2, 4 I feel like you cannot keep the father's infidelity a secret. So the kids get sat down and explained in broad terms what has happened. The conversation is likely emotional, but not accusatory, kids are the focus. Explained what this will mean for them in practical terms.

I see you continue to pretend that this will not be a severe shocker for the kids.

In scenario 3 they never hear about the infidelity. We 'adopted' a new kid.

Talk about toxic secrets, eh.

Anonymous wrote:
Its hard for people on this board to understand this mindset. I see it in all the posts of bitter people in the middle of or at the beginning of or in the aftermath of divorce. But if you divorce with children and you make it your primary goal to get THEM through the process unscathed, which is what should be the case since they are the innocents in that scenario, then they will make it through and learn the right lessons. The right lessons being:

1) Stick up for yourself
2) Forgiveness is important whether you stay or go
3) Sticking up for yourself and forgiveness are not mutually exclusive and don't necessarily mean staying together
4) Children are the most important people in a divorce and their happiness and stability should be the number 1 priority of both parents

In my opinion, treating a sibling of my children like they don't exist or meanly is detrimental to my children's understanding of compassion, family and being a decent human being. That seems to not be the case for you. You misunderstood my post because you seem to think erasing their existence is not treating them poorly. IMO, it is. When I chose to have children with my husband, I chose to be entangled with him and his choices forever. Not necessarily under the same roof, but to an extent we are inextricably intertwined. I will believe that and live that so my children will be happy and well adjusted no matter the state of their parents.

Oh you are intertwined all right - in a sense that you and your kids will suffer from this bad choices, not that you make these choices as a team. Even when you hate his choices, even when he makes them with zero regard of their impact on you and the kids, you will still suffer.

You can treat this sibling however you like. This does not change the very fundamental truth that the existence of that sibling is a threat to your children because it blew their family apart, endangered their relationships with the people who are supposed to protect them, and most likely placed them in a worse financial situation. There is nothing - absolutely nothing good - that comes out of the "sibling outside of marriage" situation. There is no upside to it. You can spin in or damage control it all you want. It does not change the fact that this is a very bad thing that's very bad for the children of marriage, who would have been 500% better off if that sibling didn't exist and the circumstances that brought him forth never occurred.

Wow lady. I'm sorry for whatever happened to you.

In my experience bad stuff happens to everyone, sometimes through choices you make, sometimes through choices loved one's make, and sometimes randomly. How you dust yourself off and deal with them teaches your kids a lot about the world. In my opinion, two parents that continue to show their kids love, who continue to prioritize them and who accept everyone involved as family will have happier kids than someone who dwells in anger and bitterness. That is what I have learned watching my parents. Or at least, at minimum, being angry and bitter and hateful and making sure your kids know it sure as hell doesn't help, so I'm going to choose the other path. And being silently angry and bitter isn't really a good option either, kids aren't stupid.

No family is a threat to my child. The child didn't blow up the marriage, the infidelity did. And just like I would go to lengths to make sure my children knew it wasn't THEIR fault if I divorced my husband, I would also never blame this hypothetical child, nor would I let my kids do that, because it would be wrong.

Most certainly everyone would be better off if this hypothetical situation never comes to pass. But if it did, I'm basically 100% sure that divorcing, loathing my husband and acting like his child doesn't exist would make the situation 100% worse, and I just don't see the value in that and frankly if I did that I would be equally to blame in the suffering my children endured. I'm sorry if you weren't strong enough to take that path because the vehemence with which you're fighting all these posters who are taking a more compassionate viewpoint makes me think this strikes close to home.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Wow lady. I'm sorry for whatever happened to you.

In my experience bad stuff happens to everyone, sometimes through choices you make, sometimes through choices loved one's make, and sometimes randomly. How you dust yourself off and deal with them teaches your kids a lot about the world. In my opinion, two parents that continue to show their kids love, who continue to prioritize them and who accept everyone involved as family will have happier kids than someone who dwells in anger and bitterness. That is what I have learned watching my parents. Or at least, at minimum, being angry and bitter and hateful and making sure your kids know it sure as hell doesn't help, so I'm going to choose the other path. And being silently angry and bitter isn't really a good option either, kids aren't stupid.

No family is a threat to my child. The child didn't blow up the marriage, the infidelity did. And just like I would go to lengths to make sure my children knew it wasn't THEIR fault if I divorced my husband, I would also never blame this hypothetical child, nor would I let my kids do that, because it would be wrong.

Most certainly everyone would be better off if this hypothetical situation never comes to pass. But if it did, I'm basically 100% sure that divorcing, loathing my husband and acting like his child doesn't exist would make the situation 100% worse, and I just don't see the value in that and frankly if I did that I would be equally to blame in the suffering my children endured. I'm sorry if you weren't strong enough to take that path because the vehemence with which you're fighting all these posters who are taking a more compassionate viewpoint makes me think this strikes close to home.

So you think the kids are "not stupid enough" not to notice that one parent is silently angry, but just stupid enough to believe that a random child who suddenly came to live with them didn't come out of infidelity?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
IMO the things I bolded above come from how the PARENTS deal with this situation when it arises. That isn't seeing things through a 'lifetime movie lens' but I am beginning to think you are just thinking of ways to sound offensively condescending to bring people into these pointless arguments because you're bored.

No they don't. They come from the children of broken marriages, and I am surprised that as a child of an acrimonious divorce, you refuse to acknowledge it. Parents will deal with their own.

Shock and confusion: what do you mean another sibling? Like not with mommy? But I thought you're only supposed to have kids with mommy? Toxic secrets: see option 3, where you blithely suggest infidelity does not have to be mentioned at all. You think children are stupid? They can't put two and two together? They'll never see the child's birth certificate? Or well-meaning strangers won't talk to them? Insecurity - so daddy doesn't love me? I'm not enough? Of course you are. But then why did he make children with not-mommy? Competition - who do you love more? What do you mean there's no money for us to go on vacation any more? Envy - why is daddy going there and not staying with me? Embarrassment with peers and relatives - hey, aren't you the kid whose father cheated and had a child with someone else? Thought you guys were an upstanding family? Loss of respect for the father (for doing this). Why did daddy have to do this? So men do this? They can't be trusted can they?

Anonymous wrote:
Scenario: My husband has a child out of wedlock. IMO the choices are not exactly the ones described earlier, for me they would be:

1) Divorce, but treat the child as a true sibling to my child. Welcome them when I see them, treat them with kindness, make them feel like family.

If you divorce, you don't really have to see them.

Anonymous wrote:
2) Stay together, with a lot of effort and work. Have some type of visitation schedule where I welcome the child when I see them, treat them with kindness and make them feel like family.

You can, but you don't have to. And good luck winning the love of a child who wishes - just like your own kids - that daddy would stay with him all the time, and not some of the time. And supporting the relationship with your children, who in the eyes of the child have everything he wished he had, but doesn't. And seeing that your children are so much better off.

Anonymous wrote:
3) Stay together, with a lot of work and effort. Be the child's primary home where I would welcome them and treat them with kindness and make them feel like family.

Some women can deal with the constant reminder of the husband's infidelity. Some can't, and they aren't monsters. No one should be asked to carry this burden, or expected to. Marriage Builders counselors, a site referenced here with some regularity, are quite direct that in the case of pregnancy outside the marriage, the marriage has the greatest chance of survival if there is no contact with the mistress and her child. This is a natural extension of the advice on recovering from infidelity centered around "no more contact with the AP, ever" - because few marriages can deal with the strain of constant reminder of infidelity.

Anonymous wrote:
4) Divorce or stay together and the mother decides to keep the child to herself and not allow it regular contact with the father. In this case, I tell my children that this child exists, I don't pretend they don't have a sibling. I don't pretend a human being doesn't exist.

In scenario 1, 2, 4 I feel like you cannot keep the father's infidelity a secret. So the kids get sat down and explained in broad terms what has happened. The conversation is likely emotional, but not accusatory, kids are the focus. Explained what this will mean for them in practical terms.

I see you continue to pretend that this will not be a severe shocker for the kids.

In scenario 3 they never hear about the infidelity. We 'adopted' a new kid.

Talk about toxic secrets, eh.

Anonymous wrote:
Its hard for people on this board to understand this mindset. I see it in all the posts of bitter people in the middle of or at the beginning of or in the aftermath of divorce. But if you divorce with children and you make it your primary goal to get THEM through the process unscathed, which is what should be the case since they are the innocents in that scenario, then they will make it through and learn the right lessons. The right lessons being:

1) Stick up for yourself
2) Forgiveness is important whether you stay or go
3) Sticking up for yourself and forgiveness are not mutually exclusive and don't necessarily mean staying together
4) Children are the most important people in a divorce and their happiness and stability should be the number 1 priority of both parents

In my opinion, treating a sibling of my children like they don't exist or meanly is detrimental to my children's understanding of compassion, family and being a decent human being. That seems to not be the case for you. You misunderstood my post because you seem to think erasing their existence is not treating them poorly. IMO, it is. When I chose to have children with my husband, I chose to be entangled with him and his choices forever. Not necessarily under the same roof, but to an extent we are inextricably intertwined. I will believe that and live that so my children will be happy and well adjusted no matter the state of their parents.

Oh you are intertwined all right - in a sense that you and your kids will suffer from this bad choices, not that you make these choices as a team. Even when you hate his choices, even when he makes them with zero regard of their impact on you and the kids, you will still suffer.

You can treat this sibling however you like. This does not change the very fundamental truth that the existence of that sibling is a threat to your children because it blew their family apart, endangered their relationships with the people who are supposed to protect them, and most likely placed them in a worse financial situation. There is nothing - absolutely nothing good - that comes out of the "sibling outside of marriage" situation. There is no upside to it. You can spin in or damage control it all you want. It does not change the fact that this is a very bad thing that's very bad for the children of marriage, who would have been 500% better off if that sibling didn't exist and the circumstances that brought him forth never occurred.

Wow lady. I'm sorry for whatever happened to you.

In my experience bad stuff happens to everyone, sometimes through choices you make, sometimes through choices loved one's make, and sometimes randomly. How you dust yourself off and deal with them teaches your kids a lot about the world. In my opinion, two parents that continue to show their kids love, who continue to prioritize them and who accept everyone involved as family will have happier kids than someone who dwells in anger and bitterness. That is what I have learned watching my parents. Or at least, at minimum, being angry and bitter and hateful and making sure your kids know it sure as hell doesn't help, so I'm going to choose the other path. And being silently angry and bitter isn't really a good option either, kids aren't stupid.

No family is a threat to my child. The child didn't blow up the marriage, the infidelity did. And just like I would go to lengths to make sure my children knew it wasn't THEIR fault if I divorced my husband, I would also never blame this hypothetical child, nor would I let my kids do that, because it would be wrong.

Most certainly everyone would be better off if this hypothetical situation never comes to pass. But if it did, I'm basically 100% sure that divorcing, loathing my husband and acting like his child doesn't exist would make the situation 100% worse, and I just don't see the value in that and frankly if I did that I would be equally to blame in the suffering my children endured. I'm sorry if you weren't strong enough to take that path because the vehemence with which you're fighting all these posters who are taking a more compassionate viewpoint makes me think this strikes close to home.

The situation is quite different when a very toxic OW is involved and using the child as a pawn. No contact is the best scenario in this case. The children of the marriage come first.