mammax3 Posted May 25, 2007 Share Posted May 25, 2007 I think it is difficult to remain friends with a cheating spouse, since a friendship is based in trust and respect and a spouse who could cheat has no respect and the trust is broken. Unless, like Trimmer and others have said, it's for the sake of the kids. I like those 2 sentences too, about spousal relationships and parental relationships. The book I'm reading right now makes the same distinction and goes so far to suggest calling the spouse "co-parent" instead of 'ex' or 'former spouse' as those are negative and doesn't adequately describe the relationship as it is now. ...I just wish my 'co-parent' wanted to 'co-parent'... I'll just call him my EX. He wants to be friends, but only to alleviate his guilt - he doesn't actually want to call and 'chat' with me and support me in any friend-ish way. He just wants to know I'm not over here seething and planning revenge (which I'm not, btw... but I'm not his friend.) Link to post Share on other sites
GreenEyedLady Posted May 25, 2007 Share Posted May 25, 2007 I think that being "friends" is a lofty goal...you can be civil... It will be up to her whether she wants to be your friend...My XH and I are civil, but we are not "friends"...he is not the kind of person that I want to be friends with... I think that you should put the kids first and not worry about being friends with your X...If that's to be, it will be... Link to post Share on other sites
blondegirl30 Posted May 25, 2007 Share Posted May 25, 2007 I'm currently going thru a friendly divorce after being married for 13 years, but there are no kids involved. I still definitely care about him but I'm not in love and haven't been for quite some time. There's just no romantic feelings of any kind, but I definitely want to always remain friends with him. Link to post Share on other sites
mum2three Posted May 25, 2007 Share Posted May 25, 2007 DGirl, you sound like you are at a very good place right now. It is nice to feel your positive energy here. I know we can make it too. I knew you went thru alot and your H ended up with OW. I totally agree with you. What kind of friendship can you have with someone who betrayed and deceived you to such an irreconcilable ending? It takes effort on both parties to be friends. Friends want to know about each other's lives and do social activities together. When the betrayed spouse has finally moved on and is emotionally detached, I would think that you will see the light and not choose to be friends with someone of that caliber even if they have forgiven them. Having kids together obviously complicates things. Hoping to be cordial or civil so you can discuss the kids would be nice. But I can't see myself hanging out with H and OW that he cheated on when married to me. Just the thought of them together disgusts me right now. I don't need the live talking boob version. They have disrespected me, helped break up my family, and changed my children's lives forever. Any forgiveness on my part would be internal so my mind can be at peace. But a real friendship can not be based on betrayal, deception, and lies. On the other hand, if H had broken up with me and there was no OW involved and he was just honest about his feelings in that he really isn't happy being married to me anymore and LATER finds another woman then I could see being more "open" to seeing them socially for the kids. (Boy, what a run-on sentence. ) Link to post Share on other sites
quiet1one1 Posted May 25, 2007 Share Posted May 25, 2007 So it seems like the one looking for the "friendship" most often is the leavor, not the leavee? IMHO I'd say it's more to compensate for the guilt they feel as opposed to any real desire to be friends. Link to post Share on other sites
Herzen Posted May 25, 2007 Share Posted May 25, 2007 "Friendship" is too strong a word to describe a betrayal- based post-separation interactions. I would use the phrase "co-parenting civility". Your ex remains your ex but you cooperate with one another in the care, nurture and growth of your children. For the betraying spouse, guilt is not the motivator as much as a continuing sense of obligation to one's children. In meeting this obligation, the betraying spouse can tell himself, "Well, I might have been a lousy husband, but I'm not going to fail as a dad." Despite these ego concerns it's love for one's children that is the greatest stimulus to co-parent in a civil, effective and caring manner. In the best of all worlds, no one cheats and marriages all last to "death do us part." Unfortunately, none of us actually live in that world. What you do, then, is try to limit, to the greatest extent possible, the collateral damage.That's why many divorced parents carry on as co-parents. Link to post Share on other sites
marlena Posted May 25, 2007 Share Posted May 25, 2007 If we hadn't had kids, I think it quite possible that I would have moved hundreds of miles away, I might not have dealt with my grief and loss in as healthy a fashion, and I imagine myself living as "angry-bitter-guy," because I wouldn't have had as strong an external reason (the kids) to pull myself together. I couldn't agree more with this statement. I too had to deal with my grief and loss in a healthy fashion for above everything else there was my daughter's welfare and mental equilibrium that surmounted everything else. And in so doing, my daughter was a constantly happy and smiling youngster . She was four at the time of the divorce. Today she is twenty three and a lawyer currently doing her M.A. in European Law in Spain! Her smile has always been a beaconin the dark!! Her teachers in High School would always comment on her winning smile and good nature! Her father and I are on the best of terms - we go out together and have fun - and holidays we spend together. I think of him as a brother - I care immensely for him - he was big part of my life after all- And yes I was a BS! Naturally this did not happen over night -- Beyond and past my bitterness and pain, I had to put my daughter's welfare above the betrayal that secretly was shredding me to pieces -- and like Trimmer says it is because of of this that I am not angry and bitter! And neither is my daughter!!! Link to post Share on other sites
hurting_in_nw Posted May 25, 2007 Share Posted May 25, 2007 All I have to add is thank God for email! Link to post Share on other sites
dgiirl Posted May 25, 2007 Share Posted May 25, 2007 All I have to add is thank God for email! :lmao::lmao:Oh how I know that feeling!! Trimmer, I completely agree with you too. There's no reason not to be civil with one another, especially when kids are involved, but not a necessary reason. Remain civil with one another until the business is done. Once you have no more reason to be in contact, then you can wish each other well and move on. With kids, that business is never done. With no kids, it's when the divorce is finalized and everything's squared away. Link to post Share on other sites
GreenEyedLady Posted May 26, 2007 Share Posted May 26, 2007 With kids, that business is never done. It depends really on the amount of contact that the father has with his children...as time goes by, alot of men cease to see their children even a fraction of the time they were granted... Then it's up to Mom (usually) to do all the business and make the big decisions (and little ones)...So i disagree with you that the business is never done. It can be done in a way...not every situation involves two very active parents in their children's lives...alot of them are pretty one-sided... Link to post Share on other sites
dgiirl Posted May 26, 2007 Share Posted May 26, 2007 It depends really on the amount of contact that the father has with his children...as time goes by, alot of men cease to see their children even a fraction of the time they were granted... I stand corrected. I should have said "It should never be done", but yes, some people flake out on their kids. Growing up, one of the street shames was when the wife of one family and husband of another hooked up and left both their spouses AND kids. Both BS' were decent people, definitely did not deserve this treatment, and had to pick up the slack as single parents. Link to post Share on other sites
Trimmer Posted May 26, 2007 Share Posted May 26, 2007 Trimmer, I completely agree with you too. There's no reason not to be civil with one another, especially when kids are involved, but not a necessary reason. Remain civil with one another until the business is done. Once you have no more reason to be in contact, then you can wish each other well and move on. With kids, that business is never done. With no kids, it's when the divorce is finalized and everything's squared away. I think this statement stands just fine as is. It depends really on the amount of contact that the father has with his children...as time goes by, alot of men cease to see their children even a fraction of the time they were granted... Then it's up to Mom (usually) to do all the business and make the big decisions (and little ones)...So i disagree with you that the business is never done. It can be done in a way...not every situation involves two very active parents in their children's lives...alot of them are pretty one-sided... While this certainly happens in both directions, and while it has traditionally been the view that the father is more likely the one to drift away (a phenomenon and a perception which I believe have gradually been shifting over time) this doesn't really diminish or modify DG's point at all. The point is that there is still business to be done; parents have responsibilities that extend beyond the end of a marriage. The fact that some individual parents choose - whether through negotiation or outright abdication - to remove themselves from those responsibilities doesn't mitigate DG's point that the "business" of raising children doesn't end with a divorce. Link to post Share on other sites
Herzen Posted May 26, 2007 Share Posted May 26, 2007 The fact that some individual parents choose - whether through negotiation or outright abdication - to remove themselves from those responsibilities doesn't mitigate DG's point that the "business" of raising children doesn't end with a divorce. So true in my case. I suspect that far fewer separated/divorced dads pull the old disappearing act now as back in my father's generation. I'd love to find statistical studies that address this issue along with longitudinal case studies that ask what difference, if any, does post-divorce co-parenting have on the children. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts