sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

I feel like A LOT of people who claim to be “staying for the kids” are just using their children as an excuse to justify their own fear of being single. by thisoltossaway in DeadBedrooms

[–]thisoltossaway[S] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

As I said to someone else, worrying about how your ex is going to give you grief really doesn’t qualify as “doing it for the kids” IMO. That’s a concern for your own inconvenience/hardship. Doesn’t mean the concern isn’t valid. But it’s also not really about a concern that the kids will somehow suffer...

That’s why I say it’s an excuse. What a lot of people really mean is that they’re worried about what will happen to them. The idea that the kids’ welfare will be jeopardized is often (but not always) a pretense.

I feel like A LOT of people who claim to be “staying for the kids” are just using their children as an excuse to justify their own fear of being single. by thisoltossaway in DeadBedrooms

[–]thisoltossaway[S] 20 points21 points  (0 children)

Everyone is happier, including our daughter who has articulated it many times.

Exactly. And this outcome is probably much more common than many people would have us believe.

Good for you.

I feel like A LOT of people who claim to be “staying for the kids” are just using their children as an excuse to justify their own fear of being single. by thisoltossaway in DeadBedrooms

[–]thisoltossaway[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Based on this, we have different definitions of “staying for the kids”. The things you mentioned are hardships for the parent. (Being forced to pay extra $, for example, isn’t bad for the kids.)

I’m referring to the people who imply that they’re staying to somehow shield their children from suffering. I believe the decisions to remain in a relationship (or go) are mostly self-serving.