Relationships, divorce

[Sandra Dodd]

In another folder I wrote something about divorce-avoidance without realizing I was in a single parenting area.

My computer is very touchy and I've lost three pieces of writing now, trying to get this somewhere. What I'm going to do is bring bits from various places and leave them here as data to consider for anyone whose relationship could be strengthened, for anyone who feels a separation would be helpful, and anyone who's in a position to encourage or discourage others in similar situation.

[Joyce Fetteroll]

** Infidelity can be the only major problem in a marriage.**

It doesn't come out of nowhere, though. If it's the *only* problem, then the spouse is incapable of commitment.

But a one legged person doesn't negate the existence of all the other two legged people. And for a shoe store to sell two legged people a single shoe because once a one legged person only wanted a single shoe doesn't help most people.

As with solving most problems it's helpful to begin examining the most likely causes and work from there.

Someone whose spouse cheated shouldn't begin with the assumption that their spouse is incapable of commitment. They should begin examining the most likely causes and the most likely cause is a problem with the relationship between the two. "Incapable of commitment" is way down on the check list of possibilities and shouldn't be jumped to until the other more likely causes have been run through.

** I would argue that a spouse breaking his or her marriage vow is a separate and usually the much more serious issue. **

Only if the betrayed person decides it is most serious. They can also decide that it isn't irreparably serious.

There's something bugging me about the above point of view. I think it's coming from an "Either believe as I believe (eg, integrity of the vow is inviolable) or we can't move onto fixing the marriage."

Philosophies are ideas we adopt to help us make decisions about what's right or wrong. Philosophies are made up of principles. We can each decide that no matter what I won't betray my vows. But imposing our principles on someone else -- deciding they must never betray their vows -- is control.

The above is saying "The only way to fix this marriage is for you to agree to put on this leash (agree the vows are inviolable) because you've shown you're incapable of using your own judgement so I must bind you with a rule."

It also removes the betrayed spouse from responsibility of working on the relationship. If the betraying spouse is bound by an unbreakable rule, the betrayed spouse doesn't need to push herself when the relationship gets hard because she's got him bound with the agreement (and guilt).

I think it's healthier for both partners to know that the other partner could stray if the relationship gets bad enough. It holds them both responsible for making the marriage work.

As an analogy, I know my daughter could pack up and leave, she could choose to keep secrets, she could choose to go to someone else when she has a problem. That keeps me working on the relationship so that when she does make one of those choices, for reasons that feel right to her, it's not because of our relationship.

[Sandra Dodd]

But it's likely you would have lived with her and hardly ever seen your dad.

The same way your mom and others should be pressed to find ways to recover and be more whole, parents now (especially those for whom unschooling is a draw) should fins ways to recover from the hurts of their past and be whole and calm for their children now.

We can repeat and justify our own upbringing (and some had great families so that's not a problem), or we can consciously step away from it.

[Gillian Goddard]

Heather, what I hear you saying is that in your life the ideal thing would have been to have had two separate households for your parents and for you to live in the household with your dad. I have 3 friends who had that as a choice where they were growing up and decided to live with their fathers. And I know a few male friends whose children have ended up in their new household after a divorce.

I am sorry that you did not have that choice. I also know that when I look at marriages from the outside that it is difficult to judge someone else's choice. Sometimes they are getting things from a situation that seems impossible to those of us looking on.

And I guess that just as with unschooling where we try to find a win-win situation for parents and children, it would be great to have had your dad be able to choose to stay with your mother (which he did) and for you to also not have had to be exposed to the things that came your way.

I'm sure that lots of healing has already happened for you and - as you probably have already realized - unschooling your children makes lots of old stuff come up for examination. It's great that you are making the choice to be a loving mother no matter what there was in your past.

[Gillian Goddard]

Oops! Sorry if my statement was unclear.
What I meant was that in my household the internal support for unschooling - outside of myself - is minimal.
I didn't mean in the wider world. In the wider world - although I live in a geographical part of the world with few if any other unschoolers - there is lots of support once you have the internet.

[Katherine]

I don't like divorce. I don't like adultery, but I don't think it has to be the end of the relationship.

Divorce and/or adultery in a marriage involving children is ... with *few* exceptions ... rarely the end of the relationship. No matter how much the partners might wish it would be!

The kids can end up feeling like they stand in the way of a final resolution ... that it's *their* fault for being in the way. *And* partners (whether divorced or staying together) who wish to eradicate their relationship are very likely to end up with kids who feel guilty existing.

For us, I want the push to resolve differences to be much bigger than the push to end relationships. For the child we've brought into the world, strengthen the desire to ignore those who tell us to end relationships after becoming family. That means cultural messages, sympathizing friends, acquaintances, and co-workers taking sides, and extended family members. The decisions we make about our family will become the deciding factors for how our children view their lives, their world and themselves. Decisions that all those sympathizing others won't be around to feel the brunt of as children are.

It's easy to feel that things have gotten very bad and could only get worse. It's better to realize that things could be better and could be made better.
____

[Alan Marshall]

**There's something bugging me about the above point of view. I think it's coming from an "Either believe as I believe (eg, integrity of the vow is inviolable) or we can't move onto fixing the marriage."**

That is not my point of view. I never said that a marriage can’t be fixed. In fact, I wrote, “I’m not saying that divorce is the only remedy or that reconciliation is not possible.”

**We can each decide that no matter what I won't betray my vows. But imposing our principles on someone else -- deciding they must never betray their vows -- is control.

The above is saying "The only way to fix this marriage is for you to agree to put on this leash (agree the vows are inviolable) because you've shown you're incapable of using your own judgement so I must bind you with a rule."**

So expecting my wife to keep her marriage vows is controlling her and putting her on a leash? What is the point of even having a marriage vow if cheating is just another problem to be worked out? Wouldn’t that essentially be an open marriage?

I am not imposing my principles on my wife. But if she no longer shares my principles, then we cannot continue to have the same relationship. We need to renegotiate. Hopefully, she would be honest and tell me first, but if she goes behind my back and lies about it, then I’m going to be very assertive in how I renegotiate. That does not mean it can’t be fixed, or that I will control her now, or that I share no responsibility to fix things.

**…because you've shown you're incapable of using your own judgement so I must bind you with a rule."**

If I make a promise, take a vow, the person I made the promise to has not imposed a rule on me. If I break the promise the offended party is not trying to control me if they object.

**It also removes the betrayed spouse from responsibility of working on the relationship.**

I specifically pointed out that it should not remove responsibility from the betrayed spouse – I wrote, “Of course, if there are other issues, an affair does not negate them. A betrayed spouse isn’t excused from responsibility for being a good partner.”

**As an analogy, I know my daughter could pack up and leave, she could choose to keep secrets, she could choose to go to someone else when she has a problem. That keeps me working on the relationship so that when she does make one of those choices, for reasons that feel right to her, it's not because of our relationship.**

Our children do not have a relationship with us by choice, our spouses do. I feel more responsibility for creating that kind of relationship with my children than with my wife because they did not choose it and they are less experienced and mature. Nevertheless, I still have ample motivation to enthusiastically work on my relationship with her other than to prevent her from keeping secrets or packing and leaving because of me.


Perhaps when I wrote this it caused a misunderstanding:
“I think a betrayal of trust of that magnitude effectively destroys the marriage (in other words, the promises made at the wedding) and something must be done to either establish a new relationship or to end the relationship.”

The idea of renegotiating a contract might be a better way to make my point. My wife and I have a legal contract, no romantic relationships or sex with other people. This contract is different than our agreements about who takes out the trash or how the kids are raised or how we work out conflicts. The government and a church were involved in this agreement, our culture (supposedly) and each of us takes the contract very seriously. If one of us breaks the contract, then it’s time to renegotiate.

Complete and immediate forgiveness and reconciliation or bitter divorce are not the only two options. If a marriage can survive infidelity without significant changes that is wonderful, but I do not think that would be possible for me. A lot of time, hard work, counseling, stress, and pain would be involved, much more than with most other potential marital problems. I suspect there are many others who would feel similarly.

The larger point I hoped to make is that it would be better for children to be considered more when we make decisions about both marriage and divorce. For me, I’m more concerned about marital fidelity than many of my peers for the same reason I’m more concerned about avoiding divorce than most. (and that doesn’t make them a bunch of divorcing cheaters, although I know a few of both) I feel that unschooling requires me to be a more dedicated husband than is the norm for most people I know irl. I’m fortunate that my wife feels the same way, but that is for her to decide.

[Sandra Dodd]

-=-Our children do not have a relationship with us by choice, our spouses do.-=-

I agree about the relationship's beginning. A marriage can be dissolved, though, and parenthood is forever. I could become a really bad mom, but I'll still be a mom. I've told my boys to be very cautious in the potentially-reproductive areas, because if they become fathers they might have no say in what happens, and even if they might want to be good fathers, they might not get the opportunity, so they need to be vigilant and all...

My husband could leave me and ignore me. We would still be the children's parents together, and would have that relationship. He would still be the father of my children.

I have a 22 year old who could legally opt to never speak to me again. Because we have chosen to go beyond what is legally required, I still help him out and he still calls and shares his life with me (and he called his sister today, and his brother last night). They didn't choose to be siblings, but they do make choices to communicate and share.

Some people do think that unborn souls choose their families and situations. I think that's wishful thinking and justification for nonsense, but it comes up and along in discussions such as this one from time to time. And some people are in arranged marriages. One unschooling family from years back had an arranged Moonie marriage (Unification Church) and they got along well and are still together after over 25 years (maybe 30 now).

Even though a couple chooses, choosing once and swearing once isn't going to maintain and nurture a relationship for 30 years. New decisions need to be made in the moment, about flirting and honesty and nurturing and all that.

[Meredith]

I think divorce would had been wonderful if i got to live with him when i was younger

Ray and George and I didn't feel like we had much choice in the matter when Ray's mom announced, seven years ago, that Ray would be living with her full time and visit us alternate weekends. We could have tried to drag the whole thing through courts, but that didn't seem like any better an option. No way of knowing how long it would take or even if we'd win - or if mom would just leave and take him with her, her favorite threat. We felt pretty helpless at the time - Ray most of all, with his dad and stepmom backing down instead of standing up.

Eventually Ray found his own way to make the choice to live with us, but it involved a good bit of violence on his part. That wasn't anyone's ideal. Also not ideal is the fact that the custody situation has always "officially" been joint-custody. So right now Ray's mom is fussing about unschooling and shouldn't he be doing something more academic now that he's high-school age? Its an ongoing negotiation.

I often had envied loving mothers.

Ray's mom loves him tremendously. It doesn't have nearly as much effect on her behavior as her needs - especially those needs tied to her old hurts. When she's feeling a lot of old hurt she's more likely to try to control others' behavior with threats and tantrums and call it "tough love".

I'm not trying to justify your mom's behavior, Heather. There's an idea that gets expressed a lot in parenting circles that "love is enough" or "love is the most important thing" or some such. It bugs me. Ray's mom loves him, but it doesn't make her a better mom. My mom's dad loved all his kids but he still drank and beat and ridiculed and insulted them.

I don't know what it is that moves people to actively working on being better parents, but it's not love, or not only love.

[greenlee]

Alan, you make some excellent points.

I think for some of us (myself included), the issue of infidelty comes down to something very simple. I want a monogamous partner. If my partner has sex with someone else, he is not monogamous. And, since I do want a monogamous partner, he would not be the right partner for me. Would I still love him, yes. Would I still consider him part of my family, yes. I would not, however, remain married to him. I am not "open" to an open marriage, which is what ours would be the minute he unzipped his pants and opened our marriage.

I think we are discussing this topic and using the word marriage inappropriately. Marriage is a legal union sanctioned by the state with obligations and benefits. It is much like a contract. Marriage can also be a spiritual, religious, and loving agreement deeply rooted in two people who believe at the time that they want to spend the rest of their lives together.

It is not the marriage itself that holds people together. It has nothing to do with the ability or the decision to bring children to this earth. It is a piece of paper filed with the county clerk's office.

What we really want are two people who chose to bring a child (or children) into the world, to stay committed to these children in every way. We want them to accept their parental responsibilities fully, and this can be done with or without the marital agreement. Granted, so often it isn't done, but that is not to say that it cannot be.

Two grown people who chose to have children together can love each other, love their children, and honor the obligation of raising the children without the marital agreement. It requires a little thinking outside the box. It would mean people would need to accept responsibility for themselves and their own actions, and for them to know that it's ok to love someone and not live with each other.

[Joyce Fetteroll]

** So expecting my wife to keep her marriage vows is controlling her and putting her on a leash? **

Yes and no. I agree that couples are helped by holding the same values, by being clear on their expectations of each other. It would make life a lot easier if adhering to an agreement were enough to give people the skills to solve problems.

If the rule is no fighting and kids start fighting, focusing on the broken rule doesn't fix why they were fighting. They'll fight again. Or find some way to annoy the other that isn't visible. The rule just says "Find a different way to resolve the problem." But it doesn't help them figure out how to solve the problem, just closes off one way.

An expectation or contract just says "Don't stray." It doesn't give someone the skills to not stray. It doesn't give the couple the skills to maintain a healthy relationship.

I think it's more helpful for maintaining a healthy relationship -- from which it's reasonable to expect not to stray! -- to focus on what will build and strengthen the relationship, what *to* do rather than rules about what not to do.

Maybe that doesn't make sense if you're picturing straying as a casual thing, a response to immaturity or lack of understanding what commitment means. I'm picturing a spouse who wants a relationship with someone but doesn't know how to get it from a partnership that is breaking down. There's miscommunication and attempts to meet needs just make things worse.

I'm not sure if I can make it any clearer.

[Joyce Fetteroll]

** I want a monogamous partner. If my partner has sex with someone else, he is not monogamous. And, since I do want a monogamous partner, he would not be the right partner for me. **

But *why* did he have sex with someone else? People don't have affairs for no reason. The above places the entire blame on the straying partner.

You've presented "not monogamous" as though it were a principle someone holds rather than as a response to what is breaking down in the relationship. Some people aren't mature enough for commitment and are carrying a lot of childhood and other baggage with them into a relationship. People who commit to monogamy aren't "not monogamous" because they've just changed their mind. There are reasons beneath it.

And that's why hypotheticals aren't good for explaining principles. People can be what if'd into behavior that sounds plausible but doesn't match what really happens.

** What we really want are two people who chose to bring a child (or children) into the world, to stay committed to these children in every way. **

But *how* do they do that? Commitment doesn't automatically provide skills to overcome baggage that people don't realize they're carrying. Some people don't know how to handle conflict. Some people shut down. (It might be what protected them as children.) Some people come to marriage very needy, having been denied unconditional love by their parents, expecting their spouse will fill their cup. If both partners don't know what to do with conflict and aren't good at interpersonal skills, how does commitment get them focused on even realizing that relationships don't just automatically work? And that there are ways to fix relationship problems?

[Sandra Dodd]

-=-I don't know what it is that moves people to actively working on being better parents, but it's not love, or not only love.-=-

I think it's about being a better person, a whole person, not just a walking wound or a byproduct of one's original family. If someone can't come to distinguish between what is harmful and what is nurturing, then they probably won't be able to nurture. If they justify what is harmful with a load of words and statistics and quotes instead of finding ways to see clearly what is purely good, they're doomed to be crummy parents and crummy humans.

My next door neighbor is MEAN. Mean to her (grown) kids (one died in a car accident, as an adult; she has his dog and is mean to the dog), mean to her husband, mean to OUR dog, mean to her neighbors, mean to passersby... Others (her kids, her neighbors) could see that and say "Well then; that's normal, and I can be that way too," or they can (if they're lucky) see it and say "This is harmful and I won't be that way."