the case for not divorcing

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So many people on here are all "think of what you're role modeling for the children if you're not affectionate / don't love each other / are playing pleasant for the children!!!"

Yes ideally all children would have parents that are married, communicate well, love each other, model great boundaries etc etc etc. But the reality is that's a small % of marriages with young children

Do you divorce if you're not that b/c you're not role modelling an ideal marriage for the kids?

Well I just texted a mom about a playdate with her daughter this weekend. She said it's the dad's weekend. The dad said he's out of town but to text the step mom. The step mom said it sounded fun but she didn't feel like the drive and it might mess up her toddlers nap time so no thanks.

Is this devastating to their kid? No. I'm sure you could argue that its great for the girl to learn to compromise. But she has new babies in both families and those families are both oriented around their full time kids instead of adapting the baby into the existing (part time) kids needs. Lets not minimize the impact of new spouses and new kids and lots of competing priorities and hierarchies of importance on a kids life. That truly can be more damaging to kids than parents stay together as platonic roommates instead of romantic partners. When second marriages have an even higher divorce rate we think thats providing a better model?

And I say this as a person who wished her parents would divorce each other when I was in high school bc they so clearly hated each other and the tension was so high

I don't know what you are thinking.

Nothing you wrote makes sense.

I grew up in a house where my parents stayed together for the "kids" absolute fail.

My brother and his wife did this and they ruined their only child.

I'm sure you would have been much better off in a blended household with a new dad who walked around in his underwear and his kids who tormented you and got much nicer stuff. That always ends well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why didn’t you drive her OP?

Personally I think remarrying and having babies when you have young kids is pretty tacky so I’m with you there.

Same. So trashy.

Quick, everyone stop living your lives because two losers on DCUM think it's "tacky and trashy."

BTW tacky and trashy are words you use when you're uneducated and haven't read enough to learn other, more descriptive words.

NP with a PHD. I agree. It’s both trashy and tacky.

Tacky is an attempt at argumentum ab auctoritate by citing your (sic) "PHD" instead of letting your ideas stand and fall on their merits.

It was entirely relevant since the previous poster said the previous PP’s conclusion implied lack of education. The PhD poster then showed that it’s possible to be very educated and make the same conclusion.

But you knew all that, didn’t you? You just wanted to sound clever.

—New NP also with a PhD

It does indeed show a lack of education when all you can do is resort to personal attacks and not properly explain why you disagree with certain behaviors. I don't believe for a second that either of you have a PhD.

I explained why your post was disingenuous. As for you not believing me—oh well.

No, you didn't. And no, I don't believe that you have a PhD. If anything, you'd be able to communicate better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So many people on here are all "think of what you're role modeling for the children if you're not affectionate / don't love each other / are playing pleasant for the children!!!"

Yes ideally all children would have parents that are married, communicate well, love each other, model great boundaries etc etc etc. But the reality is that's a small % of marriages with young children

Do you divorce if you're not that b/c you're not role modelling an ideal marriage for the kids?

Well I just texted a mom about a playdate with her daughter this weekend. She said it's the dad's weekend. The dad said he's out of town but to text the step mom. The step mom said it sounded fun but she didn't feel like the drive and it might mess up her toddlers nap time so no thanks.

Is this devastating to their kid? No. I'm sure you could argue that its great for the girl to learn to compromise. But she has new babies in both families and those families are both oriented around their full time kids instead of adapting the baby into the existing (part time) kids needs. Lets not minimize the impact of new spouses and new kids and lots of competing priorities and hierarchies of importance on a kids life. That truly can be more damaging to kids than parents stay together as platonic roommates instead of romantic partners. When second marriages have an even higher divorce rate we think thats providing a better model?

And I say this as a person who wished her parents would divorce each other when I was in high school bc they so clearly hated each other and the tension was so high

I don't know what you are thinking.

Nothing you wrote makes sense.

I grew up in a house where my parents stayed together for the "kids" absolute fail.

My brother and his wife did this and they ruined their only child.

I'm sure you would have been much better off in a blended household with a new dad who walked around in his underwear and his kids who tormented you and got much nicer stuff. That always ends well.

Projecting much?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is the case against step children.

If all the kids have the same set of parents, divorce and remarry has more potential to be less dysfunctional.

If you have children and are divorced, only remarry people who do not have / want children of their own.

Childfree people don’t want step kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You’re describing a dynamic where the divorced parents both started new families. A lot of divorces and remarriages don’t result in any more kids. Personally if I were to ever divorce i would have zero interest in more kids and would want to be with someone who also put their kids from their first marriage first.

I’m doing this right now. We share this value system so it works. My ex and I did not share values and were always clashing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why didn’t you drive her OP?

Personally I think remarrying and having babies when you have young kids is pretty tacky so I’m with you there.

Same. So trashy.

+1000

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why didn’t you drive her OP?

Personally I think remarrying and having babies when you have young kids is pretty tacky so I’m with you there.

Same. So trashy.

Quick, everyone stop living your lives because two losers on DCUM think it's "tacky and trashy."

BTW tacky and trashy are words you use when you're uneducated and haven't read enough to learn other, more descriptive words.

I think trashy is an excellent description.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why didn’t you drive her OP?

Personally I think remarrying and having babies when you have young kids is pretty tacky so I’m with you there.

Same. So trashy.

Quick, everyone stop living your lives because two losers on DCUM think it's "tacky and trashy."

BTW tacky and trashy are words you use when you're uneducated and haven't read enough to learn other, more descriptive words.

That’s not it. I have many other words. But, that is not how words work. Tacky and trashy are absolutely perfect here so one need not expand. The most educated people know that words should be precise.

One could say selfish, unfair, shortsighted, small, limited, stifling, sad. All would work.

And don’t forget “stupid”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why didn’t you drive her OP?

Personally I think remarrying and having babies when you have young kids is pretty tacky so I’m with you there.

Same. So trashy.

Quick, everyone stop living your lives because two losers on DCUM think it's "tacky and trashy."

BTW tacky and trashy are words you use when you're uneducated and haven't read enough to learn other, more descriptive words.

I think trashy is an excellent description.

It's a good thing that the overwhelming majority of people don't care what you think.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So many people on here are all "think of what you're role modeling for the children if you're not affectionate / don't love each other / are playing pleasant for the children!!!"

Yes ideally all children would have parents that are married, communicate well, love each other, model great boundaries etc etc etc. But the reality is that's a small % of marriages with young children

Do you divorce if you're not that b/c you're not role modelling an ideal marriage for the kids?

Well I just texted a mom about a playdate with her daughter this weekend. She said it's the dad's weekend. The dad said he's out of town but to text the step mom. The step mom said it sounded fun but she didn't feel like the drive and it might mess up her toddlers nap time so no thanks.

Is this devastating to their kid? No. I'm sure you could argue that its great for the girl to learn to compromise. But she has new babies in both families and those families are both oriented around their full time kids instead of adapting the baby into the existing (part time) kids needs. Lets not minimize the impact of new spouses and new kids and lots of competing priorities and hierarchies of importance on a kids life. That truly can be more damaging to kids than parents stay together as platonic roommates instead of romantic partners. When second marriages have an even higher divorce rate we think thats providing a better model?

And I say this as a person who wished her parents would divorce each other when I was in high school bc they so clearly hated each other and the tension was so high

I don't know what you are thinking.

Nothing you wrote makes sense.

I grew up in a house where my parents stayed together for the "kids" absolute fail.

My brother and his wife did this and they ruined their only child.

I'm sure you would have been much better off in a blended household with a new dad who walked around in his underwear and his kids who tormented you and got much nicer stuff. That always ends well.

Projecting much?

Happens all the time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why didn’t you drive her OP?

Personally I think remarrying and having babies when you have young kids is pretty tacky so I’m with you there.

Same. So trashy.

Quick, everyone stop living your lives because two losers on DCUM think it's "tacky and trashy."

BTW tacky and trashy are words you use when you're uneducated and haven't read enough to learn other, more descriptive words.

That’s not it. I have many other words. But, that is not how words work. Tacky and trashy are absolutely perfect here so one need not expand. The most educated people know that words should be precise.

One could say selfish, unfair, shortsighted, small, limited, stifling, sad. All would work.

And don’t forget “stupid”

I think it's stupid and limited and small to stay in a situation that is horrible for your mental and physical health under the guise that you're some kind of a martyr for your kids. If you want to stay married, by all means, have at it. To call the choices of other people all the names you listed when you have absolutely no idea what they are going through is the epitome of trashy and tacky.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why didn’t you drive her OP?

Personally I think remarrying and having babies when you have young kids is pretty tacky so I’m with you there.

Same. So trashy.

Quick, everyone stop living your lives because two losers on DCUM think it's "tacky and trashy."

BTW tacky and trashy are words you use when you're uneducated and haven't read enough to learn other, more descriptive words.

That’s not it. I have many other words. But, that is not how words work. Tacky and trashy are absolutely perfect here so one need not expand. The most educated people know that words should be precise.

One could say selfish, unfair, shortsighted, small, limited, stifling, sad. All would work.

And don’t forget “stupid”

I think it's stupid and limited and small to stay in a situation that is horrible for your mental and physical health under the guise that you're some kind of a martyr for your kids. If you want to stay married, by all means, have at it. To call the choices of other people all the names you listed when you have absolutely no idea what they are going through is the epitome of trashy and tacky.

Live your life. It’s all about you and your happiness. Kids be damned. You’re #1.

[Anonymous]

Parents under stress create issues for kids, whether they mean to or not. Kids pick up on a lot. Bad situations for parents often mean bad situations for kids. Moving to better situations (sometimes that is divorce) can help kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So many people on here are all "think of what you're role modeling for the children if you're not affectionate / don't love each other / are playing pleasant for the children!!!"

Yes ideally all children would have parents that are married, communicate well, love each other, model great boundaries etc etc etc. But the reality is that's a small % of marriages with young children

Do you divorce if you're not that b/c you're not role modelling an ideal marriage for the kids?

Well I just texted a mom about a playdate with her daughter this weekend. She said it's the dad's weekend. The dad said he's out of town but to text the step mom. The step mom said it sounded fun but she didn't feel like the drive and it might mess up her toddlers nap time so no thanks.

Is this devastating to their kid? No. I'm sure you could argue that its great for the girl to learn to compromise. But she has new babies in both families and those families are both oriented around their full time kids instead of adapting the baby into the existing (part time) kids needs. Lets not minimize the impact of new spouses and new kids and lots of competing priorities and hierarchies of importance on a kids life. That truly can be more damaging to kids than parents stay together as platonic roommates instead of romantic partners. When second marriages have an even higher divorce rate we think thats providing a better model?

And I say this as a person who wished her parents would divorce each other when I was in high school bc they so clearly hated each other and the tension was so high

This is the dumbest support for why parents should not divorce. A kid didn't get to go to a playdate? That's it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So many people on here are all "think of what you're role modeling for the children if you're not affectionate / don't love each other / are playing pleasant for the children!!!"

Yes ideally all children would have parents that are married, communicate well, love each other, model great boundaries etc etc etc. But the reality is that's a small % of marriages with young children

Do you divorce if you're not that b/c you're not role modelling an ideal marriage for the kids?

Well I just texted a mom about a playdate with her daughter this weekend. She said it's the dad's weekend. The dad said he's out of town but to text the step mom. The step mom said it sounded fun but she didn't feel like the drive and it might mess up her toddlers nap time so no thanks.

Is this devastating to their kid? No. I'm sure you could argue that its great for the girl to learn to compromise. But she has new babies in both families and those families are both oriented around their full time kids instead of adapting the baby into the existing (part time) kids needs. Lets not minimize the impact of new spouses and new kids and lots of competing priorities and hierarchies of importance on a kids life. That truly can be more damaging to kids than parents stay together as platonic roommates instead of romantic partners. When second marriages have an even higher divorce rate we think thats providing a better model?

And I say this as a person who wished her parents would divorce each other when I was in high school bc they so clearly hated each other and the tension was so high

I don't know what you are thinking.

Nothing you wrote makes sense.

I grew up in a house where my parents stayed together for the "kids" absolute fail.

My brother and his wife did this and they ruined their only child.

I'm sure you would have been much better off in a blended household with a new dad who walked around in his underwear and his kids who tormented you and got much nicer stuff. That always ends well.

Projecting much?

Pot meet kettle