# One of lifes great secrets - keeping your trousers on!



## Betsy Og (24 Mar 2011)

Recently heard that 2 people I know, both with young families, could be in the process of shacking up together. Here's hoping it doesnt happen but God I find it very depressing. On the presumption that neither of them is married to an axe murderer, could they not stick it out where they are??

Call me old-fashioned, but is it really worth disrupting your family and causing all that hurt, especially to young kids. I think its very selfish/ill-advised and whatever else.

& I dont subscribe to the "Mills & Boon" notion that romance just descended on us, we never meant it to happen. OK you mightnt have been happy or whatever but there's a point when you decide to cross the line from flirting to doing something about it - Just say NO

When you're kids are grown up then, fair enough, you only have 1 life, but getting married and having kids should mean a 20 year contract at least, your number one role is not to damage your kids too badly......


----------



## Purple (24 Mar 2011)

Agreed. Of course if the woman or man is physically abusive or there is some other extreme extenuating circumstance then it’s different but when young children are involved you don’t have the right to put yourself first.


----------



## missdaisy (24 Mar 2011)

I think that a happy relationship where parents of children stay together is probably a great aspiration and something that two partners in a relationship should work at.  

However, life isn't perfect and an unhappy marriage/partnership is definitely not a good environment for kids to be brought up in either. I don't think couples should stay together regardless just because they have children together.


----------



## Firefly (24 Mar 2011)

This might sound cliched, but whatever is in the children's best interests should be done...to me it really is that simple. All children want is a happy, loving family and something 1/2 decent at Xmas! Their needs are pretty basic and it's the minimum they deserve. Whatever you put in you get out.


----------



## ali (24 Mar 2011)

You live and learn. And change your opinions several times. I have no sympathy with people who allow short term flirtations / affairs / to destroy the associated lives in the family. However: If the relationship isn't working, and one or other party is unhappy and there is a reasonable prospect of an improvement to one's own life, then really; life is short. If there is anything I've learnt it's that life is short . And kids will grow up and make their own mistakes and their own triumphs. They are adaptable and ultimately selfish. And not in a bad way.

Just make sure it's worth it and try and minimize the hurt all around. 

I say this from a very happy family background ; but I really do believe that life flies by and opportunities for real happiness should be seized . Just be aware what you're leaving and what you're leaving it for.

A.


----------



## liaconn (25 Mar 2011)

But no one lives in a bubble. If you always just seize your chance of happiness you could be doing it at the expense of other people. I know someone who 'seized their chance' to take up a great job that involved him being away from home 4 nights a week. His wife is suffering, his parents in law are having to give up time to help with the kids, and some of the wife's colleagues have started to complain about having to pick up some of the slack because she has to dash off at 5 every evening to collect the kids, instead of every second evening as previously and can no longer travel to meetings abroad. Your actions are going to affect lots of other people, so things need to be thought through.


----------



## ali (25 Mar 2011)

liaconn said:


> But no one lives in a bubble. If you always just seize your chance of happiness you could be doing it at the expense of other people. I know someone who 'seized their chance' to take up a great job that involved him being away from home 4 nights a week. His wife is suffering, his parents in law are having to give up time to help with the kids, and some of the wife's colleagues have started to complain about having to pick up some of the slack because she has to dash off at 5 every evening to collect the kids, instead of every second evening as previously and can no longer travel to meetings abroad. Your actions are going to affect lots of other people, so things need to be thought through.


 
No arguement here. But: you have to differentiate between the big things and ultimately the things that will last and being self indulgent.


----------



## Mpsox (25 Mar 2011)

liaconn said:


> But no one lives in a bubble. If you always just seize your chance of happiness you could be doing it at the expense of other people. I know someone who 'seized their chance' to take up a great job that involved him being away from home 4 nights a week. His wife is suffering, his parents in law are having to give up time to help with the kids, and some of the wife's colleagues have started to complain about having to pick up some of the slack because she has to dash off at 5 every evening to collect the kids, instead of every second evening as previously and can no longer travel to meetings abroad. Your actions are going to affect lots of other people, so things need to be thought through.


 
To me, marriage is a partership, with give and take on both sides. For example, I'm off to London tomorrow to watch the mighty Leyton Orient (don't ask, far too long a story), wife will be at home with a 4 year old and 10 week old baby all Saturday. I'll also be working til 10 at least one night next week, so she'll be at home again with them on her own. On the other side, she's got a cookery class booked for another Saturday and going to a Spa another day with her Mum, and I'll be babysitting.  And yes, we do go off and do things together as well. 

What I can never understand is how anyone can put a job before kids and family. I would never want to live away for 4 nights a week, when I'd miss out on smiles from my baby and my little un telling me that she can't be quiet cause all the noise inside her wants to come out. Likewise, would it be worth missing out on all of that for one night of pleasure. Definatly not


----------



## truthseeker (25 Mar 2011)

I think that people jump into things too lightly - without thinking about the consequences of what they are doing.

I know of a marriage that broke up after a year, the bride just said that it wasnt what she wanted and she felt trapped and was becoming increasingly distressed at the thoughts that this was what she was stuck with, she met someone else (also married but he had children) and they both decided to make a break for it and give it a go together. 

I personally found it absolutely shocking. I couldnt understand why she had gotten married at all. 
I also couldnt understand the guy she hooked up with, one of his children was only a few months old. What was he doing having another child if he was that close to the edge!!
I cant help but think (to this day) that if I were her Id be wary of having children with the guy after seeing how easily he abandoned one family. Id also be wary of marrying either of them seeing how easily they changed their minds on that!

That said, I wouldnt condemn someone to a life that they were dreadfully unhappy in. But people need to take responsibility for their decisions and think about what they are doing before they do it. In the above stories neither party would agree to any kind of marriage counselling or attempt to fix things - they wanted to be together with the new people, out of the old marriage and that was that.

Too many people are far more interested in the wedding (ie the party) than they are in the marriage, and too many people just randomly have children without thinking about the consequences of doing so.


----------



## Sunny (25 Mar 2011)

I can beat that. I know a guy that walked out on his wife two weeks after she brought their second child home from the hospital.


----------



## truthseeker (25 Mar 2011)

Sunny said:


> I can beat that. I know a guy that walked out on his wife two weeks after she brought their second child home from the hospital.


 
Do you think that sometimes in an effort to 'repair' the relationship one or other of the couple decide a baby is the thing to bring them back together?


----------



## liaconn (25 Mar 2011)

truthseeker said:


> I think that people jump into things too lightly - without thinking about the consequences of what they are doing.
> 
> I know of a marriage that broke up after a year, the bride just said that it wasnt what she wanted and she felt trapped and was becoming increasingly distressed at the thoughts that this was what she was stuck with, she met someone else (also married but he had children) and they both decided to make a break for it and give it a go together.
> 
> ...


 
I agree. I think some people get engaged very lightly, get totally focussed on planning a big fancy wedding and then, when the wedding is just a few weeks away suddenly realise what they're doing but are too embarassed to call off the fabulous wedding they've been talking about all year. I feel sorry for anyone in that situation but think it is total madness to walk down the aisle with someone you know is not 'the one'.  A few weeks of embarassment is surely better than a lifetime of unhappiness.


----------



## Sunny (25 Mar 2011)

truthseeker said:


> Do you think that sometimes in an effort to 'repair' the relationship one or other of the couple decide a baby is the thing to bring them back together?


 
Absolutely. I know more than one couple that have gone through a hard time and then suddenly there is a baby on the way.


----------



## fobs (25 Mar 2011)

I think that over the last few years a lot of people were sucked into "If you want it get it" with life. Things we never dreamed we would afford became available to us i.e nice house,2 cars, holidays, clothes etc.. and a sense of entitlement ensued. This spread to all aspects of our lives. People had to have fancy wedding, honeymoon, fully fitted out house before moving in. 

This meant people found it hard to come to terms with day to day life and the not so glamourous lifestyle that occurs when you have kids. We can harp back to how life was so good while we were single and seek out the no strings attached relationship. It is easy to meet someone and think they are great in the pub or a restaurant when you don't have to discuss bills,schools,shopping etc.. and all the mundane things.

Marriages are hard work the same as anything else in life. People put huge effort into their working life and their kids and often forget their relationship needs to be worked on too.

Will be married 12 years this year and we have had many hard times with health issues especially but find working through them brings you closer. I feel you have to avoid certain situations when you are married and find yourself attracted to someone else. It is so easy for a casual lunch date or the casual after work drinks to lead somewhere else if you are attracted to someone else so better to avoid the temptation altogether!


----------



## truthseeker (25 Mar 2011)

liaconn said:


> I agree. I think some people get engaged very lightly, get totally focussed on planning a big fancy wedding and then, when the wedding is just a few weeks away suddenly realise what they're doing but are too embarassed to call off the fabulous wedding they've been talking about all year. I feel sorry for anyone in that situation but think it is total madness to walk down the aisle with someone you know is not 'the one'. A few weeks of embarassment is surely better than a lifetime of unhappiness.


 
I agree with you.

A couple meet, have an exciting first year together of 'honeymoon period', spend a second year saving for a house or travelling or something equally as exciting, move in in the third year, get engaged and have lots of exciting wedding plans, then after the honeymoon they come home and theyve nothing left to talk about!! And a lot of the time - then they decide to have a baby. Im convinced that some people have children rather than have nothing to plan for!!


----------



## ali (25 Mar 2011)

liaconn said:


> I agree. I think some people get engaged very lightly, get totally focussed on planning a big fancy wedding and then, when the wedding is just a few weeks away suddenly realise what they're doing but are too embarassed to call off the fabulous wedding they've been talking about all year. I feel sorry for anyone in that situation but think it is total madness to walk down the aisle with someone you know is not 'the one'. A few weeks of embarassment is surely better than a lifetime of unhappiness.


 
But you're assuming that 'the one' will always be the one. Things change, people change, and 'the one' at 26 may not be the same one you want at 44. I think people who are lucky can find that they grow along the same lines as their partner and find that they have as much if not far more in common with them as they move through the different phases of life.

But that's not everyone. Often times having a family or other life issues only brings out the differences in people. Or the mundanity of day to day life means that a little flattery, the buzz of attraction and the seduction of being selfish can bring on the infidelity. 

I agree that your first loyalty is to your family and your children but I also think that very few people sit down and ask themselves what do I want for myself. They tend to drift through life without a plan and let circumstances dictate what happens to them. Knowing what you want for yourself might lead to very different decisions.


----------



## Ceist Beag (25 Mar 2011)

Personally I think the term "the one" is a load of rubbish. To suggest that there is one and only one person out there for you is lets say a little naive! But I agree with others, entering marriage should mean you are committing to stay with that person for the rest of your life. 
ali I would very much differ from your view on this. I think relationships tend to break down when people lose respect for each other, and are no longer prepared to make the effort to see things from the other persons perspective or try to reach common ground on issues between them.
I don't accept the argument that people change - people get lazy, selfish, yes, but saying that "the one" they married is no longer the one is just a cop out as far as I'm concerned. Luck isn't a word I would use either to describe successful marriages, it is more down to a mutual appreciation between both partners that they want to build on their relationship to better understand each other.


----------



## thedaras (25 Mar 2011)

Betsy Og said:


> Recently heard that 2 people I know, both with young families, could be in the process of shacking up together. Here's hoping it doesnt happen but God I find it very depressing. On the presumption that neither of them is married to an axe murderer, could they not stick it out where they are??
> 
> Call me old-fashioned, but is it really worth disrupting your family and causing all that hurt, especially to young kids. I think its very selfish/ill-advised and whatever else.
> 
> ...


On the other hand is it worth staying together for the sake of the kids,if the kids are in an unloving environment with constant fighting and hostility?

I know many separated people who are very happy with their lot,whose kids are as balanced or unbalanced as those who stayed together.

I think its down to the way the issue is handled and how well focused the parents are at keeping the children as their top priority.

I know of people who grew up in the days when most if not all couples stayed together regardless of how badly they were treated,be it alcohol,physical.mental abuse..or just plain unhappy..And my God did those kids have to suffer also..

There is usually a reason why people Cross that line..

I was out canvassing during the divorce referendum ,I was for giving people the choice,I had strong opposition from some people,who weirdly enough are in a position where they may now have to take that choice up..
I suppose its a case of never say never..

In my own family my parents separated after 25 years,I would say 10 of those 25 years were hell for us kids,having to listen to things kicking off every other day..so it does have an effect..I would walk if I felt the kids were living in that kind of environment..we were all much happier when they finally parted.

It is impossible to judge why others do what they do..and can be unfair as we never know what is happening behind the scenes.


----------



## liaconn (25 Mar 2011)

Ceist Beag said:


> Personally I think the term "the one" is a load of rubbish. To suggest that there is one and only one person out there for you is lets say a little naive! But I agree with others, entering marriage should mean you are committing to stay with that person for the rest of your life.


 
It was just an expression Ceist meaning that if you don't 'feel' that way on your wedding day there is something wrong.


----------



## liaconn (25 Mar 2011)

thedaras said:


> On the other hand is it worth staying together for the sake of the kids,if the kids are in an unloving environment with constant fighting and hostility?
> 
> I know many separated people who are very happy with their lot,whose kids are as balanced or unbalanced as those who stayed together.
> 
> ...


 
But there's a difference between walking away from an abusive or unhealthy marriage and walking out of a lack lustre marriage because you want to be with someone else regardless of consequences.


----------



## thedaras (25 Mar 2011)

liaconn said:


> But there's a difference between walking away from an abusive or unhealthy marriage and walking out of a lack lustre marriage because you want to be with someone else regardless of consequences.



Why? It has the same effect on the kids..

And if you are happier with someone else ,it may follow that you will not be miserable in an unhappy marriage,therefore the kids will be happier.

Most children just want happy parents..


----------



## Firefly (25 Mar 2011)

thedaras said:


> Most children just want happy parents..



...under the same roof.


----------



## thedaras (25 Mar 2011)

Firefly said:


> ...under the same roof.



No..they just want happy parents..so it is the parents responsibility.
Kids living under the same roof as two unhappy parents as opposed to kids having parents under different roofs but are happy ,would be in a much better position.IMHO.


----------



## MANTO (25 Mar 2011)

+1 thedaras

People do genuinely fall out of love. So why stay together? Kids can be perfectly happy with seperated HAPPY parents.


----------



## liaconn (25 Mar 2011)

thedaras said:


> Why? It has the same effect on the kids..
> 
> And if you are happier with someone else ,it may follow that you will not be miserable in an unhappy marriage,therefore the kids will be happier.
> 
> Most children just want happy parents..


 

What about a husband walking out on a devastated wife because he's met someone else. Is that good for the children?


----------



## Complainer (25 Mar 2011)

Betsy Og said:


> Recently heard that 2 people I know, both with young families, could be in the process of shacking up together. Here's hoping it doesnt happen but God I find it very depressing. On the presumption that neither of them is married to an axe murderer, could they not stick it out where they are??


It worked pretty well for the Brady Bunch, didn't it?

I'm not suggesting that people take these decisions lightly, and I'm not even convinced that it is always better for kids when unhappy parents seperate. In the current environment, there are many very practical and financial difficulties that present huge barriers.

But people do have other relationships. It's not really up to any outsider to judge.


----------



## Sunny (25 Mar 2011)

liaconn said:


> What about a husband walking out on a devastated wife because he's met someone else. Is that good for the children?


 
No but knowing your Father doesn't love your Mother and both are miserable just to protect you can't be any easier.

There is no right answer. I think there are genuinely selfish people out there who don't care about the consequences but the vast majority of people are just human with the same flaws as everyone else. Staying in an unhappy marriage for the sake of the kids doesn't automatically make you a better parent than someone who leaves to try and find happiness elsewhere.


----------



## truthseeker (25 Mar 2011)

In most cases I dont think you have 2 unhappy people who decide it would be best for all if they went their seperate ways and found happiness. 

I think you mostly have one person who decides they want out leaving the other person hugely upset. Isnt that how most break ups happen?

I think if you have taken the step of actually marrying someone you should be prepared to try everything you can to save the marriage before walking away to be with someone else.


----------



## liaconn (25 Mar 2011)

That's it exactly Truthseeker. Yes, there are times when it's better for a couple to separate but there are an awful lot of times when it's better for one person and heartbreaking for their spouse and children. All this noble talk of 'better for the children' is often an excuse used to make the person who walked out feel better.


----------



## Betsy Og (25 Mar 2011)

A naive question maybe - but is it possible for a couple that no longer love each other to live in relative normality under the same roof, without it being a big obvious issue for the kids? (ignoring for a minute how and why they got to that position, and whose if anyone's fault it is).

Touch wood I'll never have the experience, but my current thinking would be that if things went drastically wrong with my marriage I'd still live in the family home and not seek solace elsewhere. OK it might be a bit bleak in some respects, but I'd still have my kids every day, no messy interactions with other relationships, "happy families" as much as possible, and then ultimately fly the nest at the same time as the kids. Maybe talk is cheap, and I wouldnt prove myself to be such a "hero" if it came to it (hence my determination not to be in that position in the first place), but has that ever proven possible in the past???


----------



## liaconn (25 Mar 2011)

I suspect Betsy Og that those situations happened an awful lot in the past. Our parents generation didn't tend to separate unless things were very very bad and I'm sure many people grew up in 'happy families' completely unaware that their parents' marriage had grown stale, or one partner was no longer in love with the other.


----------



## Betsy Og (25 Mar 2011)

Complainer said:


> It worked pretty well for the Brady Bunch, didn't it?.


 
lol, werent the other spouses widowed?? Given the rarity with which fathers get custody I'd say the chances of getting both sets of kids into the one household is slim to none. Think of the other spouse, not only did their partner do a legger but took the kids as well, tough going.


----------



## Sunny (25 Mar 2011)

liaconn said:


> That's it exactly Truthseeker. Yes, there are times when it's better for a couple to separate but there are an awful lot of times when it's better for one person and heartbreaking for their spouse and children. All this noble talk of 'better for the children' is often an excuse used to make the person who walked out feel better.


 
I don't know anyone is proud that their marriage failed. (Other than Americans who seem to need a divorce on their CV before the age of 21!) To be honest, I probably shouldn't comment on this. I am the last of my friends to get married simply because I was never sure it was what I wanted. People used to think there was something wrong with me but I am so glad I did what I did when I look around me. If I had my way, marriage and kids would be banned before the age of 30!


----------



## truthseeker (25 Mar 2011)

I know a couple who did that Betsy Og - it affected the youngest child (the one who they stayed together for the sake of) hugely. The mother flew the nest when the youngest was 18. All the children agreed it would have been better if she had left 10 years earlier.


----------



## thedaras (25 Mar 2011)

liaconn said:


> That's it exactly Truthseeker. Yes, there are times when it's better for a couple to separate but there are an awful lot of times when it's better for one person and heartbreaking for their spouse and children. All this noble talk of 'better for the children' is often an excuse used to make the person who walked out feel better.



Lets be real here, it would be a rare case that both people would fall out of love at the same time,so we are talking about in most cases one person ..

If my husband didn't love me,but I loved him,I think I would be rather miserable,I have too much respect for myself and children to stay with someone who didn't want to be around me,And I believe that for someone in that position they would find this fact very difficult to hide,,which in turn is NOT good for the kids.

If my husband didn't want to be with me, I think it would be fairly obvious,for example how would family holidays go?Communions/Confirmations etc etc.I would imagine it would be a huge strain on all involved.

It is not true to say its often an excuse to make the person who walked feel better,because in my experience its often the person who is not loved who decides this is not for them,and who can blame them!


----------



## liaconn (25 Mar 2011)

But in fairness, they don't know how they would have felt if that had happened either. I think a break up (while sometimes inevitable and unavoidable) will always affect the children.  (Answer to Truthseeker).


----------



## truthseeker (25 Mar 2011)

liaconn said:


> That's it exactly Truthseeker. Yes, there are times when it's better for a couple to separate but there are an awful lot of times when it's better for one person and heartbreaking for their spouse and children. All this noble talk of 'better for the children' is often an excuse used to make the person who walked out feel better.


 
I have more respect for marriage breakups when the person who walks out actually remains single - I get suspicious when the person who walks out immediately shacks up with someone else or starts partying it up big time. If you are just leaving to get your jollies elsewhere then perhaps you should have thought harder before you got married and/or had kids.


----------



## liaconn (25 Mar 2011)

thedaras said:


> Lets be real here, it would be a rare case that both people would fall out of love at the same time,so we are talking about in most cases one person ..
> 
> If my husband didn't love me,but I loved him,I think I would be rather miserable,I have too much respect for myself and children to stay with someone who didn't want to be around me,And I believe that for someone in that position they would find this fact very difficult to hide,,which in turn is NOT good for the kids.
> 
> ...


 
But it all depends on the circumstances. I don't think that simply 'falling out of love' with your partner is a good enough reason to walk out and leave your children, but that's my opinion.


----------



## liaconn (25 Mar 2011)

truthseeker said:


> i have more respect for marriage breakups when the person who walks out actually remains single - i get suspicious when the person who walks out immediately shacks up with someone else or starts partying it up big time. If you are just leaving to get your jollies elsewhere then perhaps you should have thought harder before you got married and/or had kids.


 
+1


----------



## truthseeker (25 Mar 2011)

liaconn said:


> But in fairness, they don't know how they would have felt if that had happened either. I think a break up (while sometimes inevitable and unavoidable) will always affect the children. (Answer to Truthseeker).


 
No they dont and also there was a lot of 'keeping a front for the neighbours but hell breaking loose behind closed doors' in that particular situation - the youngest was worst affected simply by dint of being the one longest living at home through out it all.


----------



## Firefly (25 Mar 2011)

thedaras said:


> No..they just want happy parents..so it is the parents responsibility.
> Kids living under the same roof as two unhappy parents as opposed to kids having parents under different roofs but are happy ,would be in a much better position.IMHO.



What I meant was that kids want happy parents under one roof. All attempts should be done to meet this rather than giving up easily. I agree that seperated parents who are both happy is better for the kids than 2 parents under the same roof who are miserable.


----------



## liaconn (25 Mar 2011)

truthseeker said:


> No they dont and also there was a lot of 'keeping a front for the neighbours but hell breaking loose behind closed doors' in that particular situation - the youngest was worst affected simply by dint of being the one longest living at home through out it all.


 
Well, in that case it was obviously two people who were miserable together and who were unable to hide it from their children. I can understand how, in that situation, it is 'better for the children' to split up.

What I don't agree with is someone just deciding that their marriage has become 'boring' or they don't 'fancy' their partner anymore and leaving for someone else with young children involved.


----------



## Betsy Og (25 Mar 2011)

How about this for a theory, most marriages will go through periods of ambivalence, where either or both spouse could take or leave it, staleness, boredom etc etc, it might feel like it'll be that way forever, it might actually be that way forever. But my suspicion is that not enough people make the effort to try to get over that hump, they throw in the towel too quick, or that for selfish reasons look beyond the marriage for a bit of excitement, as stoicism is not something which is prized in todays society (though it might be for the overall good of the family). 

They probably could go through the motions if they wanted (pretend they love their spouse - dont forget most of us will do this from time to time as we're not sure our heart is in it), but they dont bother.


----------



## truthseeker (25 Mar 2011)

Its just not possible to have an exciting marriage all the time or to fancy the other person all the time - it just wouldnt be reality!


----------



## Firefly (25 Mar 2011)

I just don't think that a lot of people think things through before committing to long term commitments. People rush into marriages, rush into having children, don't plan for their kids education, don't plan for their own retirement etc. It sounds dull and it probably is, but having the big things in life planned makes things a lot easier. Of course situations can change, but if something genuinely doesn't work out at least you know you did your best and made adult/mature choices.


----------



## thedaras (25 Mar 2011)

Similar to my parents situation, I was the youngest and all my sisters and brothers upped and left!! So it was me left to deal with it all,the rest got out of there as soon as they could!Dont blame them though..


----------

