see other thread again for my thoughts on divorce. sorry man, i'm not going to get into this with you. I wan't trying to put any trip on you. you sound like you have made the best of yours. that's good.

---

_________________________________
I'll be what I am
A solitary man

cool

Do two people subjugate there needs and thus create an atmosphere less than conducive to happiness to raise the kids in?

Flawed premise. The question is, do two people subjugate their own selfish desires, if necessary, in order to create an atmosphere conducive to raising their kids in the best possible environment. The alternative is to act on their own selfish desires and impose a trauma on their children, while at the same time decreasing their own chances for happiness, paradoxically.

Is some greater good achieved with these actions?

By actions, I assume you mean staying married? Yes, several greater goods are achieved with that.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Well then we'd disagree on whether a significant (live together) relationship that supports our whole being is either a need or a selfish desire. I believe it's a need. Due to religiousity or misguided morality (should I just say cultural philosophies) people will blame themselves for needing, this is at best deabilitating and worst tragic.

We also disagree on, what label is placed on the the effect to the children of the biological mother and father not cohabitating. You state it's "traumatic". For some I suppose it has that potential. But for just as many it could be the opposite. That comes down to the adults, they frame the situation for the younger minds. Again with archaic or ineffective philosophies guiding the adults they can certainly make the issue difficult.

In regards to greater good, please explain to me the perceived benefits.

What Vitus said.

It doesn't sound like there is anything so awful about this relationship that it can't be maintained in friendly fashion until the kids are grown.

Plenty of time to take a different path then.

Well then we'd disagree on whether a significant (live together) relationship that supports our whole being is either a need or a selfish desire. I believe it's a need.

I wonder if all the single people are going to have anything to say about that.

But let's try to keep this in context. We're talking about people who are married to the spouse of their choice, and who have kids.

We also disagree on, what label is placed on the the effect to the children of the biological mother and father not cohabitating. You state it's "traumatic".

And there is ample evidence to support that description.

for just as many it could be the opposite.

Nope. If that were true, there would have to be just as many kids of divorced parents who's situation improves after the divorce. It simply is not the case. The only kids who might benefit from divorce are those whose parents are in a "high conflict" marriage, typically marked by abuse. That's a minority of marriages.

Again with archaic or ineffective philosophies guiding the adults they can certainly make the issue difficult.

It has nothing to do with "achaic" philosophies. Divorce is inherently difficult for children. One can try to mitigate its effects on them, and maybe one can do so to a certain degree. One cannot usually eliminate them, short of staying married.

In regards to greater good, please explain to me the perceived benefits.

In the first place, the greater likelihood for happiness of the people who choose to stay married rather than get divorced.

Then, of course, the benefit for the kids, and the avoidance of all the problems that can be attributed to divorce, which are wide ranging, and widely known.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

I'd say it's a good bet that 90-95 percent of the population need a significant other. Humans are pack animals, the occasional ultra runner being the exception.

I'm sure there is "ample evidence" from those who wish to support either side of this argument.

The wide range of effects on children whose parents don't cohabitate are not from any empirical evidence. The multitude of influences on the individuals would have to be factored.... in essence a control group.

So without that we have our opinions.

Mine is that we as a culture, formerly known as christian, have learned views, supported to this day as they are with your assertations. These being pervasive, cause individuals to view their circumstances within those filters and thus:
"my life is screwed up because my parents divorced when I was ___" when in reality the decisions one makes on how to view their experience is what produces their personal reality.

Dr. Ben Carson was raised in the projects in Cincinatti by a single mother. He went on to be head of Pediatric Neuro Sugery at John Hopkins Medical. His mother framed his experience for him effectively... as did so many who've overcome challenges. The opposite being true of many from non-divorced families, my life sucks because... my dad, or my mom, or my dog...

Everything has to do with philosophies, maybe I should define that term as I'm using it. A system of beliefs guiding the decision making processes of individuals.

I wouldn't disagree that divorce is inherently difficult on children, as is school, as is growing up, as is.... etc. Difficulty if used correctly causes one to grow, if used incorrectly allows one to make excuses.

And I think that's my main point. All the cultural influences can tell you what they may, but self reliance and intelligence in the here and now (with so much accumulated knowledge) could prompt better and more productive ways of dealing with issues than texts written 1900 years ago.

I'm sure there is "ample evidence" from those who wish to support either side of this argument.

There isn't, actually.

The wide range of effects on children whose parents don't cohabitate are not from any empirical evidence.

Yes, actually it is. (Though we are not talking about kids whose parents don't cohabit. We are talking about kids whose parents were married, and cohabited, and then got divorced, and don't cohabit. Those are two different groups.)

So without that we have our opinions.

Yes, but only one of our opinions is backed up by empirical evidence. Like this:

Children of couples who fight the most and loudest tend to fare better psychologically and socially after divorce than do the children of couples whose marriage reflects few outward signs of strife, according to research published in the February edition of the Journal of Marriage and the Family.

The longitudinal study of marital conflict and stability involved a national sample of more than 2,000 married persons initially interviewed in 1980 and contacted again in 1983, ’88, ’92 and ’97. The two later interviews included samples of nearly 700 offspring who had lived in the family home in 1980 and were 19 or older when interviewed.

Well-being indicators of post-divorce offspring included overall happiness, psychological distress, the number and quality of kin and friend networks, and (among married offspring) marital happiness. Children ending up with the highest levels of anxiety and depression either had low-conflict parents who divorced or high-conflict parents who remained together.

The termination of high-conflict and often hostile marriages can be relatively inconsequential or even beneficial to children as it removes them from an antagonistic and stressful environment, Booth explains.

Children of high-conflict marriages tend to see their parents’ divorce as a welcomed escape from an aversive and dysfunctional home life. As adults, they are better off in terms of the quality of intimate relationships, social support from friends and relatives, and general psychological well-being.

On the other hand, children from low-conflict marriages tend to see their parents’ divorce as a personal tragedy and appear to experience inordinate adversity, both psychologically and socially, including their own ability to form quality intimate relationships.

"From the child’s perspective, there is no evidence that anything is drastically wrong," says Booth. " It is an unexpected, uncontrollable and unwelcome event where one parent leaves the home and the other is overwhelmed with the demands of single parenthood and a lowered standard of living."

but self reliance and intelligence in the here and now (with so much accumulated knowledge) could prompt better and more productive ways of dealing with issues than texts written 1900 years ago.

I continue to be amused at the irony of those who defend divorce using religion as an argument, instead of the "accumulated knowledge" they purport to hold in such high regard.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

What may I ask is your intention?

My intention is to bring to light the idea that older societal values are changing and we should find the best way to live to best possible degree. I believe that clinging to these outdated mores causes a decline in civilization. One can think beyond the god myth.

Your "data" you point to in the article in a Journal which by it's title is more than a little motivated by self interest. For if marriage and family was to be rearranged, there'd be no need of a journal, very important to have something if you're going to study it. (and make a living on it)

The data is no doubt accurate, but to point to marriage or lack there of being the cause is like saying that the cause of the nose running is the sinus's are irritated.... when the individual has pneumonia. Since the study was in america (I assume) you could just as well take the data and point out the cause was they were exposed to television on a daily basis, or have chicken in their diet.

My line of thought isn't that marriage is bad, or divorce good... it's that in present american society to think that a decision based on such a variety of reasons on both sides of the relationship, somehow must be dealt with until you die... no matter how the people and relationship evolve. To hang in there for the kids or for the dog or whatever is just silly. Our lives are all we have, if we miss a chance, blow off a day... it's gone.

Marriage evolved from convenience into law in civil society... it's not some mandate from a supreme being. If the populace continues to see it as such, sure they'll be continued trauma and pain... but it's not the act of marriage or divorce that makes it so, it's the views of the society (the cultural group think) that makes it so... the individuals don't have to accept those views anymore than I have to accept that McDonalds is a viable source of food.

What may I ask is your intention?
My intention is to bring to light the idea that older societal values are changing and we should find the best way to live to best possible degree.

My intention is, I guess, the same as yours- to find the best way to live to the best possible degree. Societal values about marriage have surely changed, but not in a way that allows us to achieve that end, collectively or individually. Divorce does not increase our happiness or our children's well-being. It typically decreases both. It can be avoided, and usually should be.

I believe that clinging to these outdated mores causes a decline in civilization. One can think beyond the god myth.

Again, I note the irony of the use of religion as argument. You act as if freeing ourselves from these outdated mores in marriage has helped us, as if the effect of divorce has been positive for us, as if it's advanced civilization. It most clearly has not. And I don't base that on religion, I base it on empirical evidence. Would be nice if you could do the same, but since I take your position to be that since religion says we shouldn't get divorced, and since I guess you don't like religion, divorce must be good. Doesn't stand up to the facts.

Your "data" you point to in the article in a Journal which by it's title is more than a little motivated by self interest.

Give me a break. The data was from a longitudinal study, and is only representative of what is commonly referred to, accurately, as a "growing body of evidence" about the harmful effects of divorce.

it's that in present american society to think that a decision based on such a variety of reasons on both sides of the relationship, somehow must be dealt with until you die

Please rephrase, I don't know what you're trying to say.

To hang in there for the kids or for the dog or whatever is just silly.

I guess it is, if you don't care about your kids. Oh, wait, no it's not even, since if you stay married, you're likely to be happier yourself after sticking it out, and if you get divorced, you're likely to remain permanently unhappy. More empirical evidence you can ignore:

"Divorce does seem to cause a permanent decline in levels of happiness," said study author Richard E. Lucas, an assistant professor in the department of psychology at Michigan State University in Lansing, and a research affiliate with the German Institute of Economic Research in Berlin. "People are less happy following a divorce than they were at the beginning of their marriage, or before they even got married."

To explore the emotional resonance of divorce, Lucas analyzed 18 years of data collected during once-yearly interviews involving more than 30,000 German men and women who were asked to rate their life satisfaction on a scale of one to 10.

Lucas honed in on 817 individuals, all of whom had already been married before the study launch in 1984. All the men and women remained married for at least one year into the interview process before ultimately divorcing.

He also focused on a separate pool of 2,388 men and women who were single when first interviewed, but got married at some point during the study period.

When possible, Lucas assessed the changes in annual satisfaction responses by comparing three time frames: the period of marriage occurring at least three years before a divorce -- defined as the gold standard of happiness; the "reaction period," the two years before the divorce as well as the year of the divorce itself; and the "adaptation period," beginning at least two years after the divorce.

In the December issue of Psychological Science, Lucas reports that -- as might be expected -- the average participant had a steep drop in his or her sense of happiness during the reaction period surrounding divorce. The drop was twice as evident in men compared to women.

Lucas also found that during the post-split phase, divorcees were still significantly less happy than they had been during the prime of their marriage.

A sense of happiness returned about five years after the divorce -- but never rose back to pre-divorce levels, he said.

Marriage evolved from convenience into law in civil society... it's not some mandate from a supreme being.

Again with the religious argument. Irony overdose.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Pardon me that I relate the cultural mores of america as being synonymous with christianity. But that is their genesis.
Maybe I should refer to it only as american thought, but pointing to what undergirds the thought is relative to my arguement. 85 percent profess to be christians, (germans running about 70 percent) it follows that the belief systems then are built by this philosophy and thus it should be addressed. Nothing is more influencial than the guy who you have to please to get a good afterlife. And that's my arguement, not the fact that some people are screwed up because of divorce, that's obvious, the question then is why... is it these expectations and views in society that make it or because a certain pack of humans no longer live in the same dwelling? I lean to the views as the cause. So change the views (as an individual and the world changes... achilles in the other thread needs to figure what to do now, if they "work it out", don't seperate and live unfulfilled... what good comes from that? They could refuse the normal nay saying of the culture and move ahead. Believing that good stuff is to come for themselves and the kids.)

I just can't agree with your "facts". Three types of lies, Big, White and Statistics. Your pointing to data that assumes the causes are x, but the data isn't based on control groups... so it can't be considered empirical. Both pieces you've presented have an agenda (all actions have a motive) and don't mention any other factors concerning the individuals (as it couldn't for those other factors are far to ranging as is their effects).

On rephrasing:
it's that in present american society (which is progessively and quickly moving away from patriarchal idealism) to think that a decision based on such a variety of reasons (the initial decision to marry) on both sides of the relationship (which is normally done out of far less than logic), (this decision) somehow must be dealt with until you die. (even though it's within your power to change the situation).
Rephrased again: You make decisions based on the moment, x years later reversing course is normal if the results were inadequate.

I just can't agree with your "facts".

They aren't my "facts." They're just the facts. Though it's clear that you just can't agree with them.

How do you figure all that nonsense about how people are unhappy after getting divorced just because of outdated, patriarchal religious mores has anything to do with the effects on divorce for kids, though? (This should be good.)

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

My intention is, I guess, the same as yours- to find the best way to live to the best possible degree. Societal values about marriage have surely changed, but not in a way that allows us to achieve that end, collectively or individually. Divorce does not increase our happiness or our children's well-being. It typically decreases both. It can be avoided, and usually should be.

Interesting paragraph.

As an educator, I wonder why it is whenever one is attending a seminar or discussion regarding child & adolescent development, teachers are often presented with the "fact" that there are more children in public schools from divorced parents than those from married (only once) parents? Seems to me, following the logic presented in this thread by some, that there should be no distinction because children of both situations should just be happy. But, as most know, that is too often, not the case.

Since some don't want statistics to be used to present "facts", what should we go with? Gut feelings? It has always been presented to me that children from divorced families are not as happy and have more "issues" than those whose parents are married. That jives with the experiences in my life, and as I pointed out in the other thread ... I am surrounded by more divorced parents/kids than I am married kids.

In one word, I can sum up the perceived experience of my friends from divorced homes ... "manipulated". Outside of taking on some of the blame or responsibility (as if they could have done something or they were doing something wrong), they often felt like they were being nudged (or outright bribed) to "choose a side", and far too often they were passed from one parent to another.

We can sit back, as adults, and speculate on "how kids should view divorce" or "how kids should deal with divorce", but the truth is kids don't deal with dfivorce very well (in general).

Honestly, it is hard to see, except in extreme cases, where a child would be better with his family divided than his family whole. Leaving all statistics out of it, it just seems like common sense, knowing what we do about how kids develop and how their identity is formed and comes into existence. It goes along the sames lines as saying, "Moms are just as capable as raising boys into men, as are Dads". While it certainly sounds logical, the evidence just doesn't back it up. Same line of think, IMO.

---

=======================
-- Every morning brings opportunity;
Each evening offers judgement. --

I suppose we are arguing different points.

On one hand you continue to state that studies concerning the effects of divorce show the kids are unhappy. Sure the studies adequately bare that out. My simple response to that is there are other factors at play.

On the other hand I'm arguing that the individual makes choices. These choices make the individual. The past doesn't equal the future. The present choice defines your present reality.

The forces outside the individual presently set up the notion that marriage/family is defined one certain way... seems to me your argument states that "when you step out of line all hope is lost".

That, in my opinion, is ludicrous and is fed by and feeds the disillusioned hopelessness that somehow life sucks. I disagree with the "life sucks" theory.

"when you step out of line all hope is lost".

Sounds great, but you had to make that up all by yourself since vitus never said any such thing. Ditto with ascribing the "life sucks" theory to him.

For you or any of your friends that get to see the kids every other weekend, please tell us how that is working out for the kids and for the occasional parent.

Raising my kids has been/continues to be a major league challenge. I can't even imagine adding a broken marriage to that. The results would have been awful.

well it's a long story but these are the highlights

after 3 years of marriage and 2 kids we divorced in Seattle..
I got orders (Navy) had to move to S.F.
4 years in S.F. I made 13 trips to Seattle and most my income to visit the kids +phone +gifts and candy +letters....
wife and I then remarried.
10 years later we divorced again.
Kids were in high school, they lived with me.
4 years on now and the oldest has joined the Navy. Youngest is still with me pursuing photo journalism.

best thing I did during all this was after the first divorce I read all this self help/pop psychology stuff... that really made a difference in child raising and understanding my own motivations.

bottom line though of all of it was WORK. I made a very serious effort to be the best I could be in the situation, instead of looking at the situation and thinking it had the upper hand...

Ted Roosevelt axiom "do what you can, with what you have, where you are"

Tough road. I don't envy you.

In your case you did in fact get back together, which is very unusual but not unheard of by any means. You were in fact married for nearly all of the time raising the kids.

There is no reason to think this case will turn out like that. More likely it will be the opposite, but you are correct in one part. Future situations will be driven by future decisions in large part.

Had your ex taken the more common path of acquiring new spouse/live in boyfriend and thereby distanced you from your kids, your opinions would be quite different.

Good job on making a tough situation work reasonably well for your kids.

Do two people subjugate there needs and thus create an atmosphere less than conducive to happiness to raise the kids in?

If people in a marriage look to each other to fulfill all their needs and "make" them happy, it will never work. If anyone looks to another person for their happiness, they are looking in the wrong places.

Do they pretend their needs are being fulfilled?

No, but they admit that no one can fulfill their "needs", that is up to them? That is what communication is all about.

The first step in this marriage is to communicate what are these "needs" that are not being met? Find that out and then work on it together. To give up on a marriage because your "needs" are not being met is the ultimate in selfishness. This woman is putting her "needs" ahead of her children.

My guess is those "needs" are really "wants".

---

__________________________________________________

You sir, are my new hero! - Trifan 11/13/2008

Casey, you are a wise man - blueraider_mike 11/13/2008

Casey, This is an astute observation. - Slowbern 11/17/2008

Art, My former wife did have a live in relationship after our first divorce for about a year and a half. That was very tough. But I respected that on one hand and it motivated me on the other to ensure I still had influence, not in a negative way though, just that I was dad and willing to give the effort... obviously that effort had an effect on our getting back together. She and I have a great amount of attraction, though we have little compatability...

Casey, From my wide ranging experience (20 years in the Navy living all 'round the globe) I've come to conclusion that few people even understand their needs and motivations. It's just not taught or discussed much. The needs I'm speaking of are real they can be ignored but compatibility with a mate is valuable and incompatibility is terribly detrimental to ones self. I just don't think that an individual can or should be held to a lifetime of unfulfillment because of a decision made so many years ago. Things change, and people do need fulfillment... a significant other isn't the source of that, but certainly is an assistant or detractant (is that a word)... and if it doesn't work why can't one move on? The children question is tough but imho it's overstated. Life is tough, divorce is a great excuse, but people will find plenty of other excuses for why they don't get to work and make something out of there lives.