of the parents abuse the children because of their unhappiness in the marriage, the parents have violent fights, etc, the children are better off if the parents stay married, at least until the children have grown up.  My wife and I waited until our youngest went off to college before deciding to divorce, and that has proven to be a very good decision.

I don't mean to sound critical, but people are much too quick to divorce.  The idea that "Whatever I want is best for my kids" reflects the self-absorption of too many people today.

-- Modified on 8/14/2003 7:37:02 AM

I don't believe that is the case in every circumstance.  There are sexless (or almost sexless) marriages where the couple may have a somewhat normal relationship otherwise.  In those cases, I feel that the stability of having a two parent home is much better for the kids.  Sex, though a big part in a marriage, is not the only driving factor in a happy marriage.  This is why I believe that this "industry" has its place in society.  "Ain't nobody happy if momma ain't happy" also applies if poppa ain't happy.  The situation has nothing to do with child support or even alimony, and certainly, nothing to do with courage or fear in my case.  How about a certain amount of sacrifice, loyalty and putting the family first?

Now off I go to file my papers to run for the Governor's job.  Anybody willing to sign my petition?

which there are no universal answers to.  

Interesting Lady, you recently made a post saying that you thought that marraige sounded like hell, and that you have never and would never marry.  It is therefore hard for me to feel that you aren't speaking from a very biased viewpoint.

Having said that, to a certain extent, I agree with you.  I think that there are many instances when a child is done more psychological harm than good by parents "staying together for the children".  I grew up in one such household,  dealing with my mother's alcoholism, my father's philandering (he moved into a hotel when I was ten for six months to pursue an affair with his secretary...and that was far from the only incident), and the skewered reality that this environment created.

There is no question that divorcing creates a new set of issues to cope with, and more often than not adversely affects the financial security of the parents and the children.  Depending upon the circumstances, these fears may not only be valid, they may sometimes need to take precedent, at least temporarily, and in a marraige where the partners are past reconciliation regarding intimacy, it may be best for both sides to pursue other avenues to address their needs.  I personally think this is the minority of cases, but it isn't inconceivable.  Unfortunately, it is grounds for costly divorce settlements.

On the flip side, institutionalizing sexual ambivilence towards your partner sends a clear message to your children.  It is a core part of the human psyche to hope, to want to obtain the highest a person can obtain.  In relationships, this generally means a happy, affectionate, secure, monogamous relationship. I think that most people who aren't already in a sexless marraige would agree that this is desirable, and that the concept of wanting to have a good physical relationship with your partner after years of marraige is not frivolous or idealistic but is mentally healthy.  Too many healthy couples have proved that it can happen for it to be dismissed as "new age propaganda".

Showing children that the natural hope they have to have a lasting intimate relationship with their love partner may be less important than security is simply a matter of values, and there are too many documented cases of all options in this issue being correct for the inviduals involved to say that "one way" is the way society should be.  Those that decry "modern family values" (or lack thereof) as the cause of all societal evils are avoiding the inevitability of societal evolution.  As long as a person really KNOWS what they want in the first place (which is a big hurdle in itself), I would say that a parent who has the guts to say "What I want for me is best for my kids" and is willing to sacrifice some comforts to fight for their ideals is less damaging than the thought that it is more important to sacrifice having affection be a centerpiece of your marraige (and your household) to be able to provide the security needed for your children to assimilate into the "American Dream"...which is one of the biggest causes of selfishness and the disintegration of family unit in the first place.  

If both partners in a couple are comfortable with intimacy playing a reduced or nonexistant role in their marriage, it may be viable and positive for them to stay married for other reasons.  Conversely, if both partners value affection, communication, and compromise enough, it is always possible to not have to endure a "sexless marraige".  Whatever course the couple takes, though, there are almost always ways that it affects your children and their views and development....no matter what you do.

We rarely fight, the kids are happy with their full time stay home mom, and we do normal family things as a group.  I don't see us getting separated after the kids are gone.

I'm not looking for a girlfriend or another companion.  I have always been very sexually active and seeing providers allows me to continue my desired level of activity.  I love my wife very much and would be very sad to split up.  Would I stay with her without sex with her and without providers?  Its hard to say now since that is currently the way it is.  It may sound bad, but I don't see it as cheating.  If we had sex together and I was still going elsewhere than I would feel differently (not to put my warped moral spin on guys who do).  

Some guys see providers because they are lonely.  Some guys see providers because they like the sexual thrill of doing something taboo or illegal.  Some do it because they have nothing better to do at lunchtime.  Whatever.  I do it because I like, or even need, the sexual release but want something more than the mechanical massage parlor (again, nothing against guys who like that).  I have one provider now that I continue to see and don't plan on changing anytime soon, which kind of kills the variety argument.

I am happy, my wife is happy, and best of all the kids are happy.

I guess I never looked at my marriage as being the reason to be or not to be happy - that has more to do with how I live generally.  I like my wife, except for when I don't.  Divorce would be whole lot worse for all of us - it'd just be a lose-lose-lose.  So if that's called "being afraid," so be it.  (I am also afraid of standing if freeways, so I generally avoid this as well.) I think that the whole romance bit is overblown.  We have sex when we do (leap years unless it's raining) and it's good.  I franly think the business and personal mix with you ladies is just about what the doctor ordered.

Priest give Tw1st a sock.....Tw1st FREE!

Interesting that the Priest who married us forgot the fidelity line  in the vows.  Not that it matters anymore...but I have the video tape to prove it!  my soon to be ex toyed with the vows a little and he must have forgotten it.

There are huge liabilities that a man takes on when he marries. Unless he is young and looking to start a family
(A bigger liability yet)there is no logical reason to marry with todays options. However; Endless dating is very time consuming and often doesn't meet the intended goal. The hobby although incredibly enjoyable as well as being time and goal effective can be cost prohibitive on a regular basis to many of us who are in that Sub 6 digit income range.
  Even educated men well acquainted with the perils & pratfalls of marriage will again risk it in hopes of never having to look lonelyness in the face again.