Be careful who you marry.....

[EltonFrog]

I learned as an adult (he didn't tell us any earlier) that my widowed father made a conscious decision not to re-marry as he didn't want anyone to distort, corrupt or otherwise affect the memory we had of our late mother.

I was tiny at the time of bereavement, but had older siblings. I think his decision was a noble and selfless one. In later life he had one or two long and significant relationships, but still refused to marry. The last (she predeceased him by a year or so) was a marriage in all but name. But we were no longer children, which was significant. In fact two of us were parents ourselves. A re-marriage at that age would have had zero impact on us.

He (our father) was a gregarious and attractive man who enjoyed the company of women. Women also seemed to enjoy his company, so our home didn't lack the feminine touch. But there was no unnecessary complication of our young lives with the need to 'choose' between this and that adult at some level or another. I see this too often in young people whose divorced parents have re-married. It is not universal, but it is not uncommon.

I realise that breavement and divorce are entirely different circumstances, but I see my niece and nephew dealing with the uncertainty of divorce, of re-marriage (on one side) and a constant flow of women they get close to and then never see again (on the other) - and I marvel again at the self-control and selfless approach of my father.

I condemn no-one for their romantic choices, but I see among the friends of my children, my wider family and society in general many young lives that are bollocksed up beyond belief by people reproducing with partners they are unwilling to commit to in a meaningful or longstanding way.

If adults are having difficulty dealing with the ex of a current spouse, I feel a tinge of sympathy. But it is the children, who see all, hear all and feel all, who are the parties who will pay the highest price. Not only do they see it all, they are usually unable to process it. I know many young adults whose parents said they took great care that this, that, or the other aspect of divorce and re-marriage didn't affect the children... Yeah, right. That's EXACTLY what the children would say, too.

I condemn no-one in this matter, but I agree with the OP in the matter of giving VERY CAREFUL consideration to the person you have unprotected sex with or exchange vows with.

I may be very wrong and I usually am.

In my not so humble opinion you are not wrong, and there has been within your post a very accurate placement of hammer/nail interface.

 

[Puddles]

In my not so humble opinion you are not wrong, and there has been within your post a very accurate placement of hammer/nail interface.

It can be very true, as I say to people if you love your children & will walk through the depths of hell for them, then you can put up with all sorts.

My ex-mil picks my son up from school every 3 weeks & has him for a few days in summer hols - personally I would happily push the ex-mil under a bus in a blink of an eye but she is his grandmother and so for him I can chat amicably on the phone to arrange what he would like and smile sweetly at the door when she collects/drops off I can also remember to help Squidge buy presents for her at birthday & xmas and send her a lovely religious card at easter.


With the ex I can do the same, Squidge does Fathers Day, Xmas for him & whatever woman/children he is currently hooked up with, Birthdays etc. and I can smile sweetly at the door, from the start my ex was told one word, one look, one atmosphere, one frown in front of Squidge and you can chase me to the depths of hell before you are allowed to pick him up/drop him off in person, and as I still have an active non-molestation order for him, he has to toe the line in that regard.

I have friends that ask how can you do it, especially with the ex-mil who I obviously have no need to entertain at all and my answer is simple I love my son & I value my relationship with him too highly. When he is grown he will never be able to say "you stopped me seeing my father/grandmother etc" I think if you start using children as weapons you store up a whole heap of problems for later life not only for them in a pyschological manner but also in terms of the relationship you will have as they grow in life.

 

[Saluki]

My wife has driven us to move house with her relentless spending and as my mother calls her "dippy" as she just does not have a clue when it comes to money .
Hopefully she has learnt her lesson at last , if it was not for the kids i would probably have thought about my marriage and she did come into my life when i was at a very low point so i think she deserves a second chance.

My ex-husband drove us to move house with his spending. Unlike you Cyberknight, I don't have kids so it was easy enough to walk away from. I actually believe that he has no conscience as he has done the same again to current wife. He sold my motorbike out from under me, one day while I was at work and stole my chequebook and his girlfriend forged my name. Not to mention the 3 loans he took out, in joint names with said gf, who looked similar to me (according to the bank). When I walked out, I was personally in debt to the tune of £34k.

His ex was a doozy, who he had driven to drink. She used to ring and rant at all times of the day and night. Its easy to say to unplug the phone but my Father was very ill at the time - he's now deceased - so I needed to answer the phone in case I had to run my mother to the hospital.

My new husband (been together for 10 years, mates for decades) has never had a wife before so I count myself very lucky. He's on a steep learning curve though

 

[Silver Fox]

The woman I loved unconditionally for 25 years betrayed me and broke my heart. I don't take crap, she underestimated me and I divorced her, 10 years down the line she's reaped what she sowed. I couldn't be closer to my lads, both of whom are grown men and more like mates than children to me, she on the other hand is kept at arms length by men who treat her as nothing more than a notch on the bed post. I feel sorry for her but as they say, what goes round comes round.

So, the moral of the story is simple, before you dump all over someone who thinks the world of you, think of the consequences. The grass is most definately not greener.

 

[Sara_H]

The woman I loved unconditionally for 25 years betrayed me and broke my heart. I don't take crap, she underestimated me and I divorced her, 10 years down the line she's reaped what she sowed. I couldn't be closer to my lads, both of whom are grown men and more like mates than children to me, she on the other hand is kept at arms length by men who treat her as nothing more than a notch on the bed post. I feel sorry for her but as they say, what goes round comes round.

So, the moral of the story is simple, before you dump all over someone who thinks the world of you, think of the consequences. The grass is most definately not greener.

Thats pretty much how it is with my OH's eldest boy, he's old enough to have realised how terribly his Mum treated their Dad. However the younger two aren't and have alot of resentment towards their Dad for not living with them, not realising that Dad had no choice and that it was the last thing he wanted. It's sad.

 

[Ladytrucker]

I would hate to come face to face with my ex. I would probably kill him for all the crap he gave me and then when he finished with me he took it out on our daughter. I wish i was this strong back then. what doesn't kill us makes us stronger.

 

[Boris Bajic]

This is an intresting (if unnerving) thread.

My wife (20 years and counting) but lived together for years before having a family, have regular Anti-Divorce Hugs.

She is convinced (and has convinced me) that hugging a lot keeps the love and tenderness alive. It may be that we've been lucky or that we were just compatible anyway... or it may be the anti-divorce hugs.

That isn't a euphemism... They are just hugs.

It saddens me that sometimes after a dinner with friends she says "I don't think x and y are getting on too well at the moment". Apparently women can see these things. Once or twice this initial 'not getting on too well' has ended in a permanent parting of ways.

They ought to have had more 'anti-divorce hugs'.

Related to my earlier post in this thread,although I have almost no memory of my mother, I find it significant that I have behind me a childhood and early adulthood filled with stories about things she did, places she visited, ideas she had, jobs she did. My father (her widower) had an almost systemised but utterly heartfelt propaganda spiel in place and missed few opportunities to tell us lovely things about our mother.

His friends, too, told us little tales of her younger days. It worked. We grew up with a very positive impression of her and of the love they shared. I do not see this in (per essempio) my niece and nephew - whose parents divorced and swear they don't they drop the odd little acid remark and make NO psotive references to each other, but they do. It all adds up in the children, who become confused and may also develop a mindset that assumes marital breakdown.

I'm just saying...

 

[Silver Fox]

Thats pretty much how it is with my OH's eldest boy, he's old enough to have realised how terribly his Mum treated their Dad. However the younger two aren't and have alot of resentment towards their Dad for not living with them, not realising that Dad had no choice and that it was the last thing he wanted. It's sad.

Yes, it is sad, any family breakdown is. Now, before certain individuals lock the cross hairs on me, I know there are b'stard men who get all they deserve but there is a flip side.

I've seen too many decent men have their lives dismantled by greedy and vindictive women, aided and abetted by a heavily female biased family court system where children are treated as bargaining chips and men as nothing more than meal tickets and disposable optional extras.

And women of a certain age wonder why blokes who've been through the mill are reluctant to commit again.

 

[TonyEnjoyD]

Been over 7-years nice I had to communicate with my ex, now my sons girlfriend goes and gets pregnant which may force me into a social intercourse situation with said ex.
Bonus will be that as an ex amateur actor, I will be he epitome of the socialite with my gorgeous wife on my arm.
It'll really stir up the poisonous witch

 

[Sara_H]

Yes, it is sad, any family breakdown is. Now, before certain individuals lock the cross hairs on me, I know there are b'stard men who get all they deserve but there is a flip side.

I've seen too many decent men have their lives dismantled by greedy and vindictive women, aided and abetted by a heavily female biased family court system where children are treated as bargaining chips and men as nothing more than meal tickets and disposable optional extras.

And women of a certain age wonder why blokes who've been through the mill are reluctant to commit again.

Well, as a divorced woman and now in a relationship with a divorced man I can see both sides of it.

She's always been fairly unreasonable, but these last few weeks she's really racked it up a notch. I don't know what the answer is.

 

[theclaud]

I learned as an adult (he didn't tell us any earlier) that my widowed father made a conscious decision not to re-marry as he didn't want anyone to distort, corrupt or otherwise affect the memory we had of our late mother.

I was tiny at the time of bereavement, but had older siblings. I think his decision was a noble and selfless one. In later life he had one or two long and significant relationships, but still refused to marry. The last (she predeceased him by a year or so) was a marriage in all but name. But we were no longer children, which was significant. In fact two of us were parents ourselves. A re-marriage at that age would have had zero impact on us.

He (our father) was a gregarious and attractive man who enjoyed the company of women. Women also seemed to enjoy his company, so our home didn't lack the feminine touch. But there was no unnecessary complication of our young lives with the need to 'choose' between this and that adult at some level or another. I see this too often in young people whose divorced parents have re-married. It is not universal, but it is not uncommon.

I realise that breavement and divorce are entirely different circumstances, but I see my niece and nephew dealing with the uncertainty of divorce, of re-marriage (on one side) and a constant flow of women they get close to and then never see again (on the other) - and I marvel again at the self-control and selfless approach of my father.

I condemn no-one for their romantic choices, but I see among the friends of my children, my wider family and society in general many young lives that are bollocksed up beyond belief by people reproducing with partners they are unwilling to commit to in a meaningful or longstanding way.

If adults are having difficulty dealing with the ex of a current spouse, I feel a tinge of sympathy. But it is the children, who see all, hear all and feel all, who are the parties who will pay the highest price. Not only do they see it all, they are usually unable to process it. I know many young adults whose parents said they took great care that this, that, or the other aspect of divorce and re-marriage didn't affect the children... Yeah, right. That's EXACTLY what the children would say, too.

I condemn no-one in this matter, but I agree with the OP in the matter of giving VERY CAREFUL consideration to the person you have unprotected sex with or exchange vows with.

I may be very wrong and I usually am.

You know you said that twice, right?

It saddens me that sometimes after a dinner with friends she says "I don't think x and y are getting on too well at the moment". Apparently women can see these things. Once or twice this initial 'not getting on too well' has ended in a permanent parting of ways.

They ought to have had more 'anti-divorce hugs'.

Related to my earlier post in this thread,although I have almost no memory of my mother, I find it significant that I have behind me a childhood and early adulthood filled with stories about things she did, places she visited, ideas she had, jobs she did. My father (her widower) had an almost systemised but utterly heartfelt propaganda spiel in place and missed few opportunities to tell us lovely things about our mother.

His friends, too, told us little tales of her younger days. It worked. We grew up with a very positive impression of her and of the love they shared. I do not see this in (per essempio) my niece and nephew - whose parents divorced and swear they don't they drop the odd little acid remark and make NO psotive references to each other, but they do. It all adds up in the children, who become confused and may also develop a mindset that assumes marital breakdown.

I'm just saying...

In recognition of the interesting and confiding nature of these posts, I'm obliged to rein in the snort of derision that would usually be occasioned by "the feminine touch" and the notion that "women can see these things". I'll throw in a different thought instead. For all the admirable self-sacrifice, what is the fetishization of lifelong monogamy and the denial of complexity actually teaching our children about human relationships? I'll leave the eloquent stuff to the excellent Joan Smith:

"the dishonesty about sex and love that was imposed on us until very recently has had dire consequences, ensuring that marriages end in a welter of guilt and recriminations that sour future contact and turn joint responsibilities towards children into a battleground. [...] We are only just beginning to acknowledge that there is a far more cogent argument for asking people to make long-term commitments to their children than for trying to make reluctant adults stay together. What this requires, in Maureen Freely's incisive phrase, is a 'separation of our attitudes about marriage and our attitudes about parenthood'. It could be argued that, for too long, our culture's obsession with relationships between adults, formal marriage and the attendant horror of divorce (or separation [...]) has actively worked against making proper arrangements for children."

 

[Boris Bajic]

You know you said that twice, right?



In recognition of the interesting and confiding nature of these posts, I'm obliged to rein in the snort of derision that would usually be occasioned by "the feminine touch" and the notion that "women can see these things". I'll throw in a different thought instead. For all the admirable self-sacrifice, what is the fetishization of lifelong monogamy and the denial of complexity actually teaching our children about human relationships? I'll leave the eloquent stuff to the excellent Joan Smith:

"the dishonesty about sex and love that was imposed on us until very recently has had dire consequences, ensuring that marriages end in a welter of guilt and recriminations that sour future contact and turn joint responsibilities towards children into a battleground. [...] We are only just beginning to acknowledge that there is a far more cogent argument for asking people to make long-tern commitments to their children than for trying to make reluctant adults stay together. What this requires, in Maureen Freely's incisive phrase, is a 'separation of our attitudes about marriage and our attitudes about parenthood'. It could be argued that, for too long, our culture's obsession with relationships between adults, formal marriage and the attendant horror of divorce (or separation [...]) has actively worked against making proper arrangements for children."

I appreciate the absence of a derisive snort, but I wouldn't have heard it anyway.

I am guilty of mocking myself with the 'women see these things' comment. I have no defence for its use or for the relative emotional constipation and myopia I suffer but have tried to address as an adult. It is perfectly right to pull me up on these things and I deserve it. It was borderline trollish of me to use that phrase.

It is also perfectly right to pull me up on the 'feminine touch' quote, but it has a resonance that my language failed to communicate. We were brought up by the son of a deeply emotionally scarred Flanders veteran, who himself became an emotionally destroyed veteran of Normandy (despite having been an active PPU member before war was declared). Having killed, lost friends and generally been beaten up by life, he was widowed and left to bring up three children with hardly a clue how to do the job. So family life was slightly like a barrack room and shoes were shined and carpets were hoovered and potatoes were dug and sport was done and chins were kept up and nobody cried. Family meals were cooked and eaten and volumes of alcohol that would have killed a weaker man were consumed. Believe me, the notion of a 'feminine touch' for motherless children in their formative years has some value and has a place. There may be a better way of couching it, but I know what I meant when I used the phrase.

Seeing my children growing up with a mother (with the 'feminine touch'), I see some things that were simply foreign to me in my own childhood. I do not weep about it, but it fascinates me. There is a beauty to a loving adult relationship in a household of growing children. I felt immensely privileged that I grew up in the belief that there had been love, but it was a ghost of love by the time I knew what love was. Sometimes I see our children hug their mother (my wife) and get hugged back and I almost choke. You may argue that such hugs come from fathers too and you would be right if you did. But they are not the hug of a mother.

There is also a value to seeing one's parents (or the significant adults in one's life) showing affection, respect and love to one another. If (as I have seen happen very often) a parent rolls his or her eyes skyward when the other parent is mentioned, the effect will ultimately not be a happy one.

On the stuff from Smith (whose work I have come across in other fields), I find it persuasive but not easy to agree with. As to the long-term commitment being to the child, I absolutely 100% agree. The sadness is that in my limited experience the commitment to the child is sometimes made secondary to the parent's commitment to their own social, sexual and romantic satsfaction. Not always, but sometimes.

 

[Sara_H]

You know you said that twice, right?



In recognition of the interesting and confiding nature of these posts, I'm obliged to rein in the snort of derision that would usually be occasioned by "the feminine touch" and the notion that "women can see these things". I'll throw in a different thought instead. For all the admirable self-sacrifice, what is the fetishization of lifelong monogamy and the denial of complexity actually teaching our children about human relationships? I'll leave the eloquent stuff to the excellent Joan Smith:

"the dishonesty about sex and love that was imposed on us until very recently has had dire consequences, ensuring that marriages end in a welter of guilt and recriminations that sour future contact and turn joint responsibilities towards children into a battleground. [...] We are only just beginning to acknowledge that there is a far more cogent argument for asking people to make long-tern commitments to their children than for trying to make reluctant adults stay together. What this requires, in Maureen Freely's incisive phrase, is a 'separation of our attitudes about marriage and our attitudes about parenthood'. It could be argued that, for too long, our culture's obsession with relationships between adults, formal marriage and the attendant horror of divorce (or separation [...]) has actively worked against making proper arrangements for children."

Interesting. I was very careful about who I had a child with, as I was very aware of the fact that once you share a child with someone, you are linked to them for a very long time. Sadly, as careful as I was, the situation was taken out of my hands when my ex husband decided family life was not for him.

No matter how difficult it is to have to continue a relationship (of sorts) with a man who caused me immense pain, I always behave in a way that is my sons best interests as has my ex husband.
This is what I find so confusing about the ex wife inour scenario. Her behaviour is diabolical, and the distress she causes the kids seems not to matter. The difference in the way my eldest stepson and my son, have coped with living with divorced parents compared to my youngest two stepsons is incredible.

I find it very depressing TBH as we can see their youngest wilting before our eyes, but sadly we can't control his Mums behaviour. And this is all for the cause of causing my OH pain, who did nothing wrong in the first place!

 

[theclaud]

I appreciate the absence of a derisive snort, but I wouldn't have heard it anyway.

I am guilty of mocking myself with the 'women see these things' comment. I have no defence for its use or for the relative emotional constipation and myopia I suffer but have tried to address as an adult. It is perfectly right to pull me up on these things and I deserve it. It was borderline trollish of me to use that phrase.

It is also perfectly right to pull me up on the 'feminine touch' quote, but it has a resonance that my language failed to communicate. We were brought up by the son of a deeply emotionally scarred Flanders veteran, who himself became an emotionally destroyed veteran of Normandy (despite having been an active PPU member before war was declared). Having killed, lost friends and generally been beaten up by life, he was widowed and left to bring up three children with hardly a clue how to do the job. So family life was slightly like a barrack room and shoes were shined and carpets were hoovered and potatoes were dug and sport was done and chins were kept up and nobody cried. Family meals were cooked and eaten and volumes of alcohol that would have killed a weaker man were consumed. Believe me, the notion of a 'feminine touch' for motherless children in their formative years has some value and has a place. There may be a better way of couching it, but I know what I meant when I used the phrase.

Seeing my children growing up with a mother (with the 'feminine touch'), I see some things that were simply foreign to me in my own childhood. I do not weep about it, but it fascinates me. There is a beauty to a loving adult relationship in a household of growing children. I felt immensely privileged that I grew up in the belief that there had been love, but it was a ghost of love by the time I knew what love was. Sometimes I see our children hug their mother (my wife) and get hugged back and I almost choke. You may argue that such hugs come from fathers too and you would be right if you did. But they are not the hug of a mother.

There is also a value to seeing one's parents (or the significant adults in one's life) showing affection, respect and love to one another. If (as I have seen happen very often) a parent rolls his or her eyes skyward when the other parent is mentioned, the effect will ultimately not be a happy one.

On the stuff from Smith (whose work I have come across in other fields), I find it persuasive but not easy to agree with. As to the long-term commitment being to the child, I absolutely 100% agree. The sadness is that in my limited experience the commitment to the child is sometimes made secondary to the parent's commitment to their own social, sexual and romantic satsfaction. Not always, but sometimes.

I wasn't trivializing the absence of a mother - I'm sorry if it came across that way. The point, which may seem insensitive but is no less important for it, is that the value of motherhood has nothing whatever to do with femininity. As to your last sentence, the very point of Smith's argument is to distinguish between the two things which you once again help to yoke together. We have made children's fortunes the hostage to our extremely constrained notions of fidelity and honesty - notions which, I might add, have no right to claim a monopoly on affection, respect, and love.

 

[ayceejay]

In my experience it is a mistake to give everything in spite of all those teenage love songs.
In a long ago episode of Maverick, James Garner always kept $200 of his winnings sewn into the tail of his jacket as his 'escape money' in case things became too hot. People like to control other people especially in a marriage and this can be either a good thing or a pain depending on which part you are playing and equality is an illusion. if you marry a woman because she thinks that you are not 'controlling' like every other man she has known since her father she will end up controlling you. If she loves you because you are strong and decisive she will demand that you control every little decision and bleat when you get it wrong.
So this is what you do: keep something of yourself that your partner is not partner to and keep something aside in case she insists that you share all.