Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a stepmom (and a mother) and I believe that marriage comes first because it is the center of the family, it is the glue that keeps us all together, and it's even more important for my stepdaughter to see our marriage be strong and solid because her mother has now remarried and divorced again, so she has two divorces to mourn and recover from.

I also see that a huge part of our marriage being healthy is supporting each other to be the best parents we can be. And that means choosing to spend time with our children, and my DH choosing to spend time alone with my stepdaughter, because it's important to us to be good parents.

I chose my DH in part because he is a great dad and because I could see he made HUGE sacrifices to spend lots of time with his daughter, even on weeks when he didn't have custody. So when we got together, it was important to me that he preserve that time with her, and although things changed (like, he didn't cook her dinner at his ex wife's house as often) their actual time together did not decrease or diminish in quality.

So I do think that nurturing the marriage comes first. In a healthy marriage, though, both partners are equally committed to parenting all children. Even with good intentions, though, where the conflicts sometimes arise are when the unhealthy communication patterns of the previous marriage conflict with the new marriage -- for instance, my DH is conflict avoidant, and basically he'd do anything to appease his ex because she'd become a screaming, petulant mess if he didn't. I don't blame her for this dynamic -- it's 50% his responsibility that he played into it. But it meant that, before me, he'd basically give her money just to keep her from having a shit fit, even when it wasn't in his best interests to do so (or in the best interest of his child). For instance, his ex would expect him to pay for his daughter's share of vacation expenses every year..her vacation with her mom, not her dad. And since he and his ex had the same salary (GS feds), that left him without money for his own vacation with his daughter. He did it to keep the peace, but to his detriment and to his daughter's (because she never got to take a vacation with her dad alone). So that kind of thing caused conflict, because I was not at all okay with subsidizing my DH's ex's vacation. And he was never ok with it either, but just wasn't interested in putting in the energy to break out of the dynamic they were in. So, I'm sure I was cast as the evil stepmom for a couple of years. And it caused tension all around. But the upside is that my DH and his daughter got to have a vacation alone together for two years, and that was worth fighting for.

This story is a great example of how the "ex-DH puts new girl first" myth is created. So basically, when ex-DH comes to his senses and pulls back on some of the over the top things he has been doing, he's the bad guy. Now, his ex-wife can tell the kids and the world that he put his new girl first because he stopped funding HER VACATIONS. These types of behaviors don't mean the new partner is being chosen over the children..it means common sense has kicked in and they are no longer allowing the first wives to rule their time and wallets post divorce.

Not a myth as it is literally what took place.
Love the angry 2nd wives of dcum.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would think the kids from the first marriage stand the best chance of good treatment in the second marriage if THAT STEPPARENT had kids they're bringing into the marriage, too. And if they don't have more kids together.

You'd think. But my brother is going through this now and his fiancée treats his kid like crap. Total Cinderella scenario. Nasty nasty nasty.

Doesn't say much about your brother that he allows this.

Anonymous wrote:I would think the kids from the first marriage stand the best chance of good treatment in the second marriage if THAT STEPPARENT had kids they're bringing into the marriage, too. And if they don't have more kids together.

You'd think. But my brother is going through this now and his fiancée treats his kid like crap. Total Cinderella scenario. Nasty nasty nasty.

I think another consideration that has to color this discussion is that women are STILL only paid, what?, 70 cents on the dollar compared to equally qualified men. So usually but not always, fathers are in a better position than others to pay extra child expenses.

I would think the kids from the first marriage stand the best chance of good treatment in the second marriage if THAT STEPPARENT had kids they're bringing into the marriage, too. And if they don't have more kids together.

Anonymous wrote:I'm a stepmom (and a mother) and I believe that marriage comes first because it is the center of the family, it is the glue that keeps us all together, and it's even more important for my stepdaughter to see our marriage be strong and solid because her mother has now remarried and divorced again, so she has two divorces to mourn and recover from.

I also see that a huge part of our marriage being healthy is supporting each other to be the best parents we can be. And that means choosing to spend time with our children, and my DH choosing to spend time alone with my stepdaughter, because it's important to us to be good parents.

I chose my DH in part because he is a great dad and because I could see he made HUGE sacrifices to spend lots of time with his daughter, even on weeks when he didn't have custody. So when we got together, it was important to me that he preserve that time with her, and although things changed (like, he didn't cook her dinner at his ex wife's house as often) their actual time together did not decrease or diminish in quality.

So I do think that nurturing the marriage comes first. In a healthy marriage, though, both partners are equally committed to parenting all children. Even with good intentions, though, where the conflicts sometimes arise are when the unhealthy communication patterns of the previous marriage conflict with the new marriage -- for instance, my DH is conflict avoidant, and basically he'd do anything to appease his ex because she'd become a screaming, petulant mess if he didn't. I don't blame her for this dynamic -- it's 50% his responsibility that he played into it. But it meant that, before me, he'd basically give her money just to keep her from having a shit fit, even when it wasn't in his best interests to do so (or in the best interest of his child). For instance, his ex would expect him to pay for his daughter's share of vacation expenses every year..her vacation with her mom, not her dad. And since he and his ex had the same salary (GS feds), that left him without money for his own vacation with his daughter. He did it to keep the peace, but to his detriment and to his daughter's (because she never got to take a vacation with her dad alone). So that kind of thing caused conflict, because I was not at all okay with subsidizing my DH's ex's vacation. And he was never ok with it either, but just wasn't interested in putting in the energy to break out of the dynamic they were in. So, I'm sure I was cast as the evil stepmom for a couple of years. And it caused tension all around. But the upside is that my DH and his daughter got to have a vacation alone together for two years, and that was worth fighting for.

This story is a great example of how the "ex-DH puts new girl first" myth is created. So basically, when ex-DH comes to his senses and pulls back on some of the over the top things he has been doing, he's the bad guy. Now, his ex-wife can tell the kids and the world that he put his new girl first because he stopped funding HER VACATIONS. These types of behaviors don't mean the new partner is being chosen over the children..it means common sense has kicked in and they are no longer allowing the first wives to rule their time and wallets post divorce.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Very simple.

When a child is conceived, unless they make alternate arrangements (such as giving the child up for adoption), the mother and father agree to take responsibility for that child until the child is no longer a minor, in most US jurisdictions, this is 18. If the couple separate or divorce, they still have that responsibility for the child. If either parent finds a new partner, they do so knowing that they still have the responsibility for the child. If someone marries a partner who already has a child from prior to the marriage, they should do so knowing that their partner already has a standing responsibility to a child that does not get discarded just because they are divorced. Second marriages are undertaken with the understanding that there is a prior responsibility that still has to be respected and accounted for. If you don't want a partner with divided responsibilities and want your marriage to be first and foremost, don't marry a partner who has minor children. If you do, you do so accepting that they have the responsibility to put those children before you or your marriage.

The children come first because the parent made that commitment first and can only go into new commitments, such as a new marriage, with that in mind.

Disagree. Yes to the part where the first obligation has to be respected and accounted for. No to the part where it comes FIRST.

I agree with you. Parents are responsible, but prioritizing children doesn't mean catering to their every whim and desire.

But it's "catering to every whim and desire" only when it's not your child, so you don't love them like your child. When it's your child, it's normal stuff a parent does for a child. Look, I don't blame second wives. I wouldn't want my household finances impacted by a kid who is not mine. But that's why I didn't marry a man with kids. The only kids in my house are ours. Life is easier that way. I always pity these women. They think they can wish or will away the reality.

No, you shouldn't be catering to every whim and desire of your own child either. That creates a spoiled insufferable child that becomes a spoiled insufferable entitled adult. That may be normal for lots of people noawadays but it doesn't make it right.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why the need to marry the divorced guy/gal? Can you not have a long term relationship and keep the finances separate?

That works for some people, but the legal rights associated with being married are pretty well documented. A couple of social reasons I can think of would be:

- want to have a child together and feel that marriage is important for that
- want the social validation of "being married" vs. "being in a long term relationship"
- personal spiritual commitment

+1 I can't believe all the people here who really think you shouldn't get remarried if you have children.

Blended families are high drama, high stress environments for everyone involved. That is not fair to the children, who didn't ask for the divorce and who can't say "no" to a new step-parent and who can't move out before they are 18.

You shouldn't remarry if you are divorced and have kids. It's never good for the kids. The person most likely to abuse or molest your child is your new boyfriend or husband. That's an extreme example, but the spectrum of shitty parenting by step-parents is both broad and deep.

This is such complete nonsense. Your absolutism is ridiculous, as is your fear mongering that step-parents are abusers.

You might not like it but the statistics are clear that step-parents are far more likely to be abusive to their step-children than biological parents are to the same children. That doesn't mean that all step-parents are abusers, but if you intend to protect your children, you shouldn't have a step-parent in the house. Step-parents are statistically much more dangerous to children than strangers. No one would question keeping a stranger out of the house or away from kids. Same thing with step-parents.

Date whoever you like, but don't marry them and don't let them live in your house with your kids.

Children are also molested by teachers, religious leaders, sports coaches, and extended family members. They are also abused by biological parents and siblings. If you "intend to protect your children" you should make sure to avoid all those things too. Also cars. Cars are very dangerous for children. Avoid them, if you intend to protect your children.

Are you seriously suggesting that anyone who remarries doesn't want to protect their kids? Just keep making yourself sound crazy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Very simple.

When a child is conceived, unless they make alternate arrangements (such as giving the child up for adoption), the mother and father agree to take responsibility for that child until the child is no longer a minor, in most US jurisdictions, this is 18. If the couple separate or divorce, they still have that responsibility for the child. If either parent finds a new partner, they do so knowing that they still have the responsibility for the child. If someone marries a partner who already has a child from prior to the marriage, they should do so knowing that their partner already has a standing responsibility to a child that does not get discarded just because they are divorced. Second marriages are undertaken with the understanding that there is a prior responsibility that still has to be respected and accounted for. If you don't want a partner with divided responsibilities and want your marriage to be first and foremost, don't marry a partner who has minor children. If you do, you do so accepting that they have the responsibility to put those children before you or your marriage.

The children come first because the parent made that commitment first and can only go into new commitments, such as a new marriage, with that in mind.

Disagree. Yes to the part where the first obligation has to be respected and accounted for. No to the part where it comes FIRST.

I agree with you. Parents are responsible, but prioritizing children doesn't mean catering to their every whim and desire.

But it's "catering to every whim and desire" only when it's not your child, so you don't love them like your child. When it's your child, it's normal stuff a parent does for a child. Look, I don't blame second wives. I wouldn't want my household finances impacted by a kid who is not mine. But that's why I didn't marry a man with kids. The only kids in my house are ours. Life is easier that way. I always pity these women. They think they can wish or will away the reality.

I'm a stepmom (and a mother) and I believe that marriage comes first because it is the center of the family, it is the glue that keeps us all together, and it's even more important for my stepdaughter to see our marriage be strong and solid because her mother has now remarried and divorced again, so she has two divorces to mourn and recover from.

I also see that a huge part of our marriage being healthy is supporting each other to be the best parents we can be. And that means choosing to spend time with our children, and my DH choosing to spend time alone with my stepdaughter, because it's important to us to be good parents.

I chose my DH in part because he is a great dad and because I could see he made HUGE sacrifices to spend lots of time with his daughter, even on weeks when he didn't have custody. So when we got together, it was important to me that he preserve that time with her, and although things changed (like, he didn't cook her dinner at his ex wife's house as often) their actual time together did not decrease or diminish in quality.

So I do think that nurturing the marriage comes first. In a healthy marriage, though, both partners are equally committed to parenting all children. Even with good intentions, though, where the conflicts sometimes arise are when the unhealthy communication patterns of the previous marriage conflict with the new marriage -- for instance, my DH is conflict avoidant, and basically he'd do anything to appease his ex because she'd become a screaming, petulant mess if he didn't. I don't blame her for this dynamic -- it's 50% his responsibility that he played into it. But it meant that, before me, he'd basically give her money just to keep her from having a shit fit, even when it wasn't in his best interests to do so (or in the best interest of his child). For instance, his ex would expect him to pay for his daughter's share of vacation expenses every year..her vacation with her mom, not her dad. And since he and his ex had the same salary (GS feds), that left him without money for his own vacation with his daughter. He did it to keep the peace, but to his detriment and to his daughter's (because she never got to take a vacation with her dad alone). So that kind of thing caused conflict, because I was not at all okay with subsidizing my DH's ex's vacation. And he was never ok with it either, but just wasn't interested in putting in the energy to break out of the dynamic they were in. So, I'm sure I was cast as the evil stepmom for a couple of years. And it caused tension all around. But the upside is that my DH and his daughter got to have a vacation alone together for two years, and that was worth fighting for.

Marriage first only works when all the children affected are the children of both spouses. Period. It is ludicrous to think otherwise. This is why blended families don't usually work out.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why the need to marry the divorced guy/gal? Can you not have a long term relationship and keep the finances separate?

That works for some people, but the legal rights associated with being married are pretty well documented. A couple of social reasons I can think of would be:

- want to have a child together and feel that marriage is important for that
- want the social validation of "being married" vs. "being in a long term relationship"
- personal spiritual commitment

+1 I can't believe all the people here who really think you shouldn't get remarried if you have children.

Blended families are high drama, high stress environments for everyone involved. That is not fair to the children, who didn't ask for the divorce and who can't say "no" to a new step-parent and who can't move out before they are 18.

You shouldn't remarry if you are divorced and have kids. It's never good for the kids. The person most likely to abuse or molest your child is your new boyfriend or husband. That's an extreme example, but the spectrum of shitty parenting by step-parents is both broad and deep.

This is such complete nonsense. Your absolutism is ridiculous, as is your fear mongering that step-parents are abusers.

You might not like it but the statistics are clear that step-parents are far more likely to be abusive to their step-children than biological parents are to the same children. That doesn't mean that all step-parents are abusers, but if you intend to protect your children, you shouldn't have a step-parent in the house. Step-parents are statistically much more dangerous to children than strangers. No one would question keeping a stranger out of the house or away from kids. Same thing with step-parents.

Date whoever you like, but don't marry them and don't let them live in your house with your kids.

^^ bitter ex wife

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why the need to marry the divorced guy/gal? Can you not have a long term relationship and keep the finances separate?

That works for some people, but the legal rights associated with being married are pretty well documented. A couple of social reasons I can think of would be:

- want to have a child together and feel that marriage is important for that
- want the social validation of "being married" vs. "being in a long term relationship"
- personal spiritual commitment

+1 I can't believe all the people here who really think you shouldn't get remarried if you have children.

Blended families are high drama, high stress environments for everyone involved. That is not fair to the children, who didn't ask for the divorce and who can't say "no" to a new step-parent and who can't move out before they are 18.

You shouldn't remarry if you are divorced and have kids. It's never good for the kids. The person most likely to abuse or molest your child is your new boyfriend or husband. That's an extreme example, but the spectrum of shitty parenting by step-parents is both broad and deep.

This is such complete nonsense. Your absolutism is ridiculous, as is your fear mongering that step-parents are abusers.

You might not like it but the statistics are clear that step-parents are far more likely to be abusive to their step-children than biological parents are to the same children. That doesn't mean that all step-parents are abusers, but if you intend to protect your children, you shouldn't have a step-parent in the house. Step-parents are statistically much more dangerous to children than strangers. No one would question keeping a stranger out of the house or away from kids. Same thing with step-parents.

Date whoever you like, but don't marry them and don't let them live in your house with your kids.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Very simple.

When a child is conceived, unless they make alternate arrangements (such as giving the child up for adoption), the mother and father agree to take responsibility for that child until the child is no longer a minor, in most US jurisdictions, this is 18. If the couple separate or divorce, they still have that responsibility for the child. If either parent finds a new partner, they do so knowing that they still have the responsibility for the child. If someone marries a partner who already has a child from prior to the marriage, they should do so knowing that their partner already has a standing responsibility to a child that does not get discarded just because they are divorced. Second marriages are undertaken with the understanding that there is a prior responsibility that still has to be respected and accounted for. If you don't want a partner with divided responsibilities and want your marriage to be first and foremost, don't marry a partner who has minor children. If you do, you do so accepting that they have the responsibility to put those children before you or your marriage.

The children come first because the parent made that commitment first and can only go into new commitments, such as a new marriage, with that in mind.

Disagree. Yes to the part where the first obligation has to be respected and accounted for. No to the part where it comes FIRST.

I agree with you. Parents are responsible, but prioritizing children doesn't mean catering to their every whim and desire.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why the need to marry the divorced guy/gal? Can you not have a long term relationship and keep the finances separate?

That works for some people, but the legal rights associated with being married are pretty well documented. A couple of social reasons I can think of would be:

- want to have a child together and feel that marriage is important for that
- want the social validation of "being married" vs. "being in a long term relationship"
- personal spiritual commitment

+1 I can't believe all the people here who really think you shouldn't get remarried if you have children.

Blended families are high drama, high stress environments for everyone involved. That is not fair to the children, who didn't ask for the divorce and who can't say "no" to a new step-parent and who can't move out before they are 18.

You shouldn't remarry if you are divorced and have kids. It's never good for the kids. The person most likely to abuse or molest your child is your new boyfriend or husband. That's an extreme example, but the spectrum of shitty parenting by step-parents is both broad and deep.

This is such complete nonsense. Your absolutism is ridiculous, as is your fear mongering that step-parents are abusers.

I wonder how your step-kids feel about you.

I don't have step-kids. I wonder if the people you're close to know that you're a nutcase.