Anonymous wrote:OP I don’t think there’s a “right” answer here.

I’m also a child of divorce and am choosing a neutral platonic marriage over divorce because I believe it is better for my kids than the way I grew up, and continue to be impacted by my parents divorce. My parents divorce was amicable, but been over 40 years, and they’re still divorced. It’s still two different trips to take the kids to see my side of the family, for example.

I have no idea whether it would have been better for them to stay married, that isn’t what I’m saying, though I do remember wishing for that at least into my teens. But I know what divorce is, in very good circumstances, and I know what my marriage is for my kids, and I’m choosing my marriage.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t know about research, but from my own experience, yes, it is better for your kids for you to stay in your low conflict (and low affection) marriage. Frankly, your affection level doesn’t make much difference to your kids. They would much rather that, that dealing with your boyfriends/dad’s new girlfriends, babysitters regularly so you can date, having much of your attention funneled into online dating, and then there’s the boyfriend’s kids..

When you decide to have children, you owe them a stable life. They should have to deal with your love life BS because you find your marriage low affection. Get your freak on when they go off to college.

+1000

I love how all of these “oh my parents lack of affection was SO TRAUMATIZING” posters think having the kids bounce back and forth between homes, deal with a parents new love interest, a potential new marriage and all the crap an associated blended family brings, is the better alternative.

Marriage is hard. That feeling of constant skyrockets and butterflies in the stomach is long gone for most people. You enter into a marriage for the long haul. Think about your kids - not your lack of spark with your spouse. It’s pathetic.

Anonymous wrote:I am wondering if there is any research on the question of what is better for kids:

(1) seeing parents in a low conflict, but low interaction and zero affection marriage (basically living separate lives under one roof, but with zero fighting); or

(2) a low conflict divorce.

I am currently living in situation (1) purely for the benefit of my kids. I am in individual therapy and my therapist didn’t seem convinced that this IS necessarily better for them than a low conflict divorce.

I am not aware of any research or expert opinions on this specific question and wondering if anyone else is?

As a child of divorce, I still think it would have been better for the family if my parents had stuck it out in (1), for the simple reason that I didn’t like living between two separate residences. This is a big part of why I stay.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Op here. Thanks for all the replies. I’m specifically wondering if there are any studies or experts that speak to this-does anyone know?

Not super interested in everyone’s opinion on what I should do

Try posting in a medical board.

The whole point of this site is soliciting opinions.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t know about research, but from my own experience, yes, it is better for your kids for you to stay in your low conflict (and low affection) marriage. Frankly, your affection level doesn’t make much difference to your kids. They would much rather that, that dealing with your boyfriends/dad’s new girlfriends, babysitters regularly so you can date, having much of your attention funneled into online dating, and then there’s the boyfriend’s kids..

When you decide to have children, you owe them a stable life. They should have to deal with your love life BS because you find your marriage low affection. Get your freak on when they go off to college.

+1000

I love how all of these “oh my parents lack of affection was SO TRAUMATIZING” posters think having the kids bounce back and forth between homes, deal with a parents new love interest, a potential new marriage and all the crap an associated blended family brings, is the better alternative.

Marriage is hard. That feeling of constant skyrockets and butterflies in the stomach is long gone for most people. You enter into a marriage for the long haul. Think about your kids - not your lack of spark with your spouse. It’s pathetic.

Don’t ask the question if you can’t handle the first hand feedback.

Anonymous wrote:Op here. Thanks for all the replies. I’m specifically wondering if there are any studies or experts that speak to this-does anyone know?

Not super interested in everyone’s opinion on what I should do

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t know about research, but from my own experience, yes, it is better for your kids for you to stay in your low conflict (and low affection) marriage. Frankly, your affection level doesn’t make much difference to your kids. They would much rather that, that dealing with your boyfriends/dad’s new girlfriends, babysitters regularly so you can date, having much of your attention funneled into online dating, and then there’s the boyfriend’s kids..

When you decide to have children, you owe them a stable life. They should have to deal with your love life BS because you find your marriage low affection. Get your freak on when they go off to college.

+1000

I love how all of these “oh my parents lack of affection was SO TRAUMATIZING” posters think having the kids bounce back and forth between homes, deal with a parents new love interest, a potential new marriage and all the crap an associated blended family brings, is the better alternative.

Marriage is hard. That feeling of constant skyrockets and butterflies in the stomach is long gone for most people. You enter into a marriage for the long haul. Think about your kids - not your lack of spark with your spouse. It’s pathetic.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t know about research, but from my own experience, yes, it is better for your kids for you to stay in your low conflict (and low affection) marriage. Frankly, your affection level doesn’t make much difference to your kids. They would much rather that, that dealing with your boyfriends/dad’s new girlfriends, babysitters regularly so you can date, having much of your attention funneled into online dating, and then there’s the boyfriend’s kids..

When you decide to have children, you owe them a stable life. They should have to deal with your love life BS because you find your marriage low affection. Get your freak on when they go off to college.

+1000

I love how all of these “oh my parents lack of affection was SO TRAUMATIZING” posters think having the kids bounce back and forth between homes, deal with a parents new love interest, a potential new marriage and all the crap an associated blended family brings, is the better alternative.

Marriage is hard. That feeling of constant skyrockets and butterflies in the stomach is long gone for most people. You enter into a marriage for the long haul. Think about your kids - not your lack of spark with your spouse. It’s pathetic.

OP is thinking about the kids. It's OP's therapist who isn't.

I vote OP gets a new therapist.

Not every therapist has similar worth as the couch they use.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t know about research, but from my own experience, yes, it is better for your kids for you to stay in your low conflict (and low affection) marriage. Frankly, your affection level doesn’t make much difference to your kids. They would much rather that, that dealing with your boyfriends/dad’s new girlfriends, babysitters regularly so you can date, having much of your attention funneled into online dating, and then there’s the boyfriend’s kids..

When you decide to have children, you owe them a stable life. They should have to deal with your love life BS because you find your marriage low affection. Get your freak on when they go off to college.

+1000

I love how all of these “oh my parents lack of affection was SO TRAUMATIZING” posters think having the kids bounce back and forth between homes, deal with a parents new love interest, a potential new marriage and all the crap an associated blended family brings, is the better alternative.

Marriage is hard. That feeling of constant skyrockets and butterflies in the stomach is long gone for most people. You enter into a marriage for the long haul. Think about your kids - not your lack of spark with your spouse. It’s pathetic.

OP is thinking about the kids. It's OP's therapist who isn't.

I vote OP gets a new therapist.

Anonymous wrote:I am wondering if there is any research on the question of what is better for kids:

(1) seeing parents in a low conflict, but low interaction and zero affection marriage (basically living separate lives under one roof, but with zero fighting); or

(2) a low conflict divorce.

I am currently living in situation (1) purely for the benefit of my kids. I am in individual therapy and my therapist didn’t seem convinced that this IS necessarily better for them than a low conflict divorce.

I am not aware of any research or expert opinions on this specific question and wondering if anyone else is?

As a child of divorce, I still think it would have been better for the family if my parents had stuck it out in (1), for the simple reason that I didn’t like living between two separate residences. This is a big part of why I stay.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t know about research, but from my own experience, yes, it is better for your kids for you to stay in your low conflict (and low affection) marriage. Frankly, your affection level doesn’t make much difference to your kids. They would much rather that, that dealing with your boyfriends/dad’s new girlfriends, babysitters regularly so you can date, having much of your attention funneled into online dating, and then there’s the boyfriend’s kids..

When you decide to have children, you owe them a stable life. They should have to deal with your love life BS because you find your marriage low affection. Get your freak on when they go off to college.

+1000

I love how all of these “oh my parents lack of affection was SO TRAUMATIZING” posters think having the kids bounce back and forth between homes, deal with a parents new love interest, a potential new marriage and all the crap an associated blended family brings, is the better alternative.

Marriage is hard. That feeling of constant skyrockets and butterflies in the stomach is long gone for most people. You enter into a marriage for the long haul. Think about your kids - not your lack of spark with your spouse. It’s pathetic.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t know about research, but from my own experience, yes, it is better for your kids for you to stay in your low conflict (and low affection) marriage. Frankly, your affection level doesn’t make much difference to your kids. They would much rather that, that dealing with your boyfriends/dad’s new girlfriends, babysitters regularly so you can date, having much of your attention funneled into online dating, and then there’s the boyfriend’s kids..

When you decide to have children, you owe them a stable life. They should have to deal with your love life BS because you find your marriage low affection. Get your freak on when they go off to college.

+1000

I love how all of these “oh my parents lack of affection was SO TRAUMATIZING” posters think having the kids bounce back and forth between homes, deal with a parents new love interest, a potential new marriage and all the crap an associated blended family brings, is the better alternative.

Marriage is hard. That feeling of constant skyrockets and butterflies in the stomach is long gone for most people. You enter into a marriage for the long haul. Think about your kids - not your lack of spark with your spouse. It’s pathetic.