Here is another question...

[waterwoman]

In the 24 hour period after I found some texts and before h came clean, be was talking about leaving. He was perfectly happy to leave the children with me. And i can assure you I'd have been perfectly happy as a lone parent. The way he'd been towards them during the affair it wouldn't have been such a huge loss:mad: The children were not a factor on their own.

 

He decided to stay because he realised he wanted the whole package including ME! Then he had to bite the bullet and tell the full story and that hurt.

[cocorico]

It is often said that the WS's do not really stay in marriages "for their children" or "because of their children", that this isn't "truly" a factor for them, but that they are staying for themselves. And then it is often said that a BS often/sometimes stays for their children or because of their children. Or at least considers their children when making their decision to stay.

 

What do you all say? Is it a double standard? Or, is it a perception issue - depending on which side of the fence you are on? Are the children a factor for "most" WS's and a reason that they stay? Or not - is it all rubbish? And if that's so - then are they a consideration for the BSs decision to stay, or not? And if so - why is it different (if it is?). Why is it accepted that a BS would stay after an A for their children, but not that a WS would stay before/during an A for their children?

 

Of course it's a double standard, predicated on the notion that the WS, as the "perpetrator" of an A, must be bad thus can have no redeeming features, while a BS, as the "victim" of the A, must be nano cent thus can have no aggravating features. It ignores that people are people, most are a mix of good and bad, and just as the WS can be anywhere along the spectrum between a saint or a demon, so can a BS. Being able to categorise people simplistically as " good" or "bad" makes it easier for little kids to understand the world, and some adults cling nostalgically to those familiar notions.

 

As it happens, my father did stay "for the kids", and left the M as soon as we were grown. My H took his xW back after a pleasant year's separation in spite of his own best interests, because of the trauma the kids were suffering during the separation, and then felt obliged to remain in the failed M u T&L the kids were older and a successful transition out of the M could be handled. If he really was just "doing it for himself" he'd have laughed in her face when she pitched up at his door, begging and pleading to be taken back, promising the earth, because he as happier than he'd ever been at that point, and had the support of his family and friends to show her the door.

[Owl]

That is truthful, thank you!

 

I actually just saw a BS post on another board here that they were staying for their children - that's what brought up the question. Because when they said it, everyone was accepting of it and praising and thought it was very noble - and it just struck me that it is a TOTALLY different response when a WS says the same thing - most times.

 

I have to agree with Eleanor...as a long time poster on this forum, it's nearly always the OW/OM who comes and says that the WS "stayed for the kids".

 

You rarely see them say that themselves. You also rarely see a BS say that this is the only reason that they stay too.

 

And...regardless..."staying for the kids" would be something classified as a "SHORT TERM MOTIVE". It's not the kind of thing that's going to KEEP a critically unhappy/unsatisfied person in place for years...unless they're a martyr.

 

"Staying for the kids"....as an only motive for staying...wouldn't by itself ever lead to reconciliation. Staying typically leads into resuming emotional interaction with the other spouse...which is what WILL lead to reconciliation if possible.

 

At the end of the day...does it really matter "WHY" they stayed? Really? What matters is the end RESULT...for everyone involved.

 

Focus on the result, quit trying to second guess the motives of someone who probably never spent much time trying to sort out their own motives themselves.

[cocorico]

 

At the end of the day...does it really matter "WHY" they stayed? Really? What matters is the end RESULT...for everyone involved.

 

 

I think it does matter, because understanding why helps one understand whether or not it is likely to be sustainable. As you posted, if it's just "for the kids" that is not likely to lead to a proper R, as I've seen up close. It simply buys time until they feel better about leaving. If the BS, the OW / OM etc knew it was just a biding of time they would be able to make an informed decision based on that - whether to continue to invest in a R with such a person under those conditions, whether to cut their losses and leave, etc.

[Silly_Girl]

Some say they stay for the kids' sake, and mean it (whether it's a good call or not).

Some say they stay for the kids and it's an excuse for denial/lack of action.

Some leave because it's the right thing to do for them(/everyone).

 

Having children together, in my view, is the most compelling reason to try and improve a failing relationship, but it's not the only reason and it doesn't make staying mandatory or sensible.

[Owl]

I think it does matter, because understanding why helps one understand whether or not it is likely to be sustainable. As you posted, if it's just "for the kids" that is not likely to lead to a proper R, as I've seen up close. It simply buys time until they feel better about leaving. If the BS, the OW / OM etc knew it was just a biding of time they would be able to make an informed decision based on that - whether to continue to invest in a R with such a person under those conditions, whether to cut their losses and leave, etc.

 

Or...it could go like it did in my case.

 

My wife stayed because OM told her not to come, and she had no place else to go. She'd already emotionally checked out of the marriage while building her relationship with OM.

 

But...she stayed.

 

And as part of my requirement for her to stay, I INSISTED that we attend both MC, and IC for each of us. She agreed, but wasn't an overly willing participant........at first.

 

Initially, she was quite angry/frustrated/hurtful. However, over time, our daily interactions increased...and over time, with work, her desire to try to rebuild our marriage built up.

 

A year later, we ended MC/IC.

 

Now, nine years later, our marriage is great. We've learned a lot of painful lessons from what we went through. Our marriage is truly "reconciled".

 

Even she didn't understand her own reasoning at the time. She's not the type to spend much time on introspection.

 

The "why" didn't matter...the end results did.

 

And from an OW perspective, I would think this would be even MORE important.

 

Stop trying to spend so much time trying to understand WHY he stayed...it doesn't matter...he stayed, and that ended your relationship. Spending too much time focused on something out of your control when you should be spending more time on rebuilding your own life is not the way to go.

[beenburned]

My personal observation is that many cheating spouses are not good parents during an active affair.

 

The WH's in the above^^ cases were noticely absent from their children's daily activities. And even when they were home, they wanted zero participation in any of their responsibilities, both toward their wife and their children.

 

The WH's above were selfish self centered people, who were only thinking of themselves and their *****!

 

I appologize to the BH's on here for my example, as I know firsthand this is also the case of WW's.

 

When my married sister had her brief affair, she dumped her young child off with my mother after her daily job to spend more time with her MM!

And when she was home, she ignored her child to talk on the phone with her MM. She was not a good mother while she was cheating to her child.

 

Since the original poster was talking about what cheating spouses tell their AP's on why they are staying in their marriage, I would assume this to be a big lie.(simply because of seeing firsthand how WS's mistreat their children during an affair)

[KathyM]

I think there's a lot of reasons why a WS may choose to stay in a marriage, and those reasons are pretty similar to the reasons a BS may decide to stay in a marriage after discovering the affair: They don't want to disrupt the children's lives, they don't want to split custody of the children, they don't want to lose financial assets, they don't want to lose their spouse because they still have feelings for him/her, they don't want to raise their children alone, they don't want to tarnish the facade of their public persona, the marriage serves them well and they don't want to give that up, they may fear change, they may fear backlash from children, friends, relatives, etc., just to name a few reasons why both the WS and the BS may decide to stay in a marriage. I think the WS stays in the marriage for many of the same reasons the BS decides to stay in the marriage after discovering the affair. I think most WS are not looking to change their life situation with their marriage and family when they have an affair, they just want some action on the side, and they either feel entitled to it, or they are drawn into it because they let their guard or their boundaries down.

[beach]

Maybe a WS/BS might say that if he/she is ALSO having an affair - unbeknownst to the other spouse...

[ComingInHot]

Perception. Self Preservation. Deception. These things all play a role(and more probably).

 

The BS ( that's me ) needs to/wants to believe Wh chose ME & our children/family.

 

OW needs/wants to believe WH is staying for kids not love of W cause he'll always love her

 

Wh ? Could be deceiving Both to save his own a$$.

 

Whatever my take matters*

[underwater2010]

I think that for the WS and BS children can be a huge factor. Any parent that is truly invested in their children will think of the ramifications of leaving a marriage. As long as there is no physical abuse or constant arguing....most parent consider what is healthy long term for their children.

 

My husband coaches our son's team, learns all about the sports our oldest daughter participates in and is involved as heck with our 2 yr old. He is one hell of a father. I can only imagine the thoughts of only having our kids with him a few days a week and chancings another man coming into their lives to help raise them.

 

For me...I wouldn't want my kids part time. I want them all the time. I am just as invested as he is. I have coached my oldest daughters sports team, take an interest in my son's sport and could not live without my 2 yr old. I would never take them away from their father and would never bring another man into their lives.

 

All that being said...it was a huge factor initially in my staying or leaving after finding out about his affair. The major one being his wanting the marriage too.

 

I have no double standard when it comes to the WS staying for the kids. I just cannot understand someone wanting a relationship with someone who is not willing to leave for them.

[georgia girl]

My absolutely honest opinion? It's an easy out for a WS to say he's staying for the kids. It's also easy for the affair partner to hear. Staying for the kids is noble, it makes him a good father and a family man. But, what's the opposite? To tell you that he truly intends to stay in his marriage and while he has intense feelings - even love - for you, he really doesn't see a future together?

 

Saying he's staying for the kids in my opinion is his copout and its an excuse that is palatable to the OW. To be honest, the person I really think will try to make it work for the kids is the BS. Their whole life has been shattered - and their children's lives are shattered - and they didn't even know that it was at risk. Further, there's no win in it to stay for them personally. Not unless the cheating spouse REALLY makes an effort to make it work. So, who would they stay for? Their children. To protect their sense of normalcy; to not experience a change in socio-economic status; to keep their kids in the same house with in the same school district, etc.

 

Sorry. That's just my opinion.

[Got it]

I think that for the WS and BS children can be a huge factor. Any parent that is truly invested in their children will think of the ramifications of leaving a marriage. As long as there is no physical abuse or constant arguing....most parent consider what is healthy long term for their children.

 

My husband coaches our son's team, learns all about the sports our oldest daughter participates in and is involved as heck with our 2 yr old. He is one hell of a father. I can only imagine the thoughts of only having our kids with him a few days a week and chancings another man coming into their lives to help raise them.

 

For me...I wouldn't want my kids part time. I want them all the time. I am just as invested as he is. I have coached my oldest daughters sports team, take an interest in my son's sport and could not live without my 2 yr old. I would never take them away from their father and would never bring another man into their lives.

 

All that being said...it was a huge factor initially in my staying or leaving after finding out about his affair. The major one being his wanting the marriage too.

 

I have no double standard when it comes to the WS staying for the kids. I just cannot understand someone wanting a relationship with someone who is not willing to leave for them.

 

From my personal viewpoint, dMM was very reluctant to leave because of the kids and enjoying them on a daily basis. So it was a valid concern for him. He had fears that if he did divorce that she would go after him for the kids and there would be issues with things.

 

His ex wife did stay married for the kids after her affair. She was never intending to leave after her affair and said so when he found out about it (though the affair was over well prior to that).

 

When he did leave, after his affair, many of his fears did come to fruition, she did put the kids in the middle of it especially the oldest daughter, and claimed that leaving her was leaving her and the kids which was never the case. One can divorce a spouse and but not leave the kids. He has had to threaten her with legal action because of parental alienation. He has a very strained relationship with his daughter though a much better one with the younger kids. She told him that if he left she would make him pay and that has proven to be true.

 

So I do think there is definitely some credence to the fear, especially for men, that they will lose their kids after a divorce.

 

I know of another person, a friend who is the BH. He found out his wife was leaving him and found out about an affair. He did not fight dirty, tried to work with her and she and the courts have raked him over the coals. He has limited access to his kids, she has accused him of everything now including abuse and even though there is nothing to substantiate it he is tired of the fighting and is giving up on his relationship with his children. He is tired of every time he has them an accusation coming out afterwards.

 

Both cases were very hands on fathers who were very active in their children's lives.

 

So while before I may have somewhat scoffed at the fear and "staying for the kids" I understand it a little better now. My father "stayed for the kids" as well. I don't agree with it, we had a very toxic household and I don't think we benefited but financially we couldn't maintain two households and he thought it was the right decision. They divorced after the youngest went to college.

[AnotherRound]

My absolutely honest opinion? It's an easy out for a WS to say he's staying for the kids. It's also easy for the affair partner to hear. Staying for the kids is noble, it makes him a good father and a family man. But, what's the opposite? To tell you that he truly intends to stay in his marriage and while he has intense feelings - even love - for you, he really doesn't see a future together?

 

Saying he's staying for the kids in my opinion is his copout and its an excuse that is palatable to the OW. To be honest, the person I really think will try to make it work for the kids is the BS. Their whole life has been shattered - and their children's lives are shattered - and they didn't even know that it was at risk. Further, there's no win in it to stay for them personally. Not unless the cheating spouse REALLY makes an effort to make it work. So, who would they stay for? Their children. To protect their sense of normalcy; to not experience a change in socio-economic status; to keep their kids in the same house with in the same school district, etc.

 

Sorry. That's just my opinion.

 

Don't be sorry, that's fair!

 

So, do you believe that a WS who says they are staying and really are staying for the children is a myth? That it never happens?

 

And, what if someone said that BSs lie and SAY they are staying for the children - but really, they are staying for financial security and only using the children as an excuse to appear noble and like they are a good parent?

 

Would that be offensive even though it could be just as true as the other way around?

 

This makes me want to bust out my old logical arguments formula and put it to work, lol. Anyone able to come up with a good example of Syllogism on this? Where both premises are ABSOLUTELY true, therefore making the conclusion ABSOLUTELY true? Or, is everyone comfortable with making statements/conclusions that are illogical? (not aimed at anyone, just using the language of Syllogism)

 

That's my pet peeve - false premises while presenting a conclusion like it's absolute. Anyway - thanks for the discussion all... it was interesting.

[georgia girl]

Another Round,

 

I can agree that there are times when a MM says he is and stays for the children. I do think that's very true. I can also see where there may be a financial incentive for BOTH of them to stay in the marriage. Divorces are very expensive.

 

My point, badly made, is that I think it is an easy excuse as well. It's an excuse that is genuinely a palatable one. Further, I think there is an incentive for a MM to leave - he's got a soft spot to land - where the same incentive may not be there for a BS, especially if she doesn't know that there is anything going on.

 

But you are absolutely correct. Some do stay for their children and they mean it when they say it. If you think about it, if it were unequivocally not true, then no one would believe it when others lied about it. And there are incentives for the spouse to stay outside of the children.

 

But I would argue that when one person has an outside interest and D-day happens, the incentive for the one with the outside interest to go is much stronger than the one who does not have such an interest.

 

Again, badly made point and I am glad that you called me on it!

[AnotherRound]

From my personal viewpoint, dMM was very reluctant to leave because of the kids and enjoying them on a daily basis. So it was a valid concern for him. He had fears that if he did divorce that she would go after him for the kids and there would be issues with things.

 

His ex wife did stay married for the kids after her affair. She was never intending to leave after her affair and said so when he found out about it (though the affair was over well prior to that).

 

When he did leave, after his affair, many of his fears did come to fruition, she did put the kids in the middle of it especially the oldest daughter, and claimed that leaving her was leaving her and the kids which was never the case. One can divorce a spouse and but not leave the kids. He has had to threaten her with legal action because of parental alienation. He has a very strained relationship with his daughter though a much better one with the younger kids. She told him that if he left she would make him pay and that has proven to be true.

 

So I do think there is definitely some credence to the fear, especially for men, that they will lose their kids after a divorce.

 

I know of another person, a friend who is the BH. He found out his wife was leaving him and found out about an affair. He did not fight dirty, tried to work with her and she and the courts have raked him over the coals. He has limited access to his kids, she has accused him of everything now including abuse and even though there is nothing to substantiate it he is tired of the fighting and is giving up on his relationship with his children. He is tired of every time he has them an accusation coming out afterwards.

 

Both cases were very hands on fathers who were very active in their children's lives.

 

So while before I may have somewhat scoffed at the fear and "staying for the kids" I understand it a little better now. My father "stayed for the kids" as well. I don't agree with it, we had a very toxic household and I don't think we benefited but financially we couldn't maintain two households and he thought it was the right decision. They divorced after the youngest went to college.

 

I have about a billion stories like this too - especially regarding the Husbands of divorce. The family courts just haven't caught up with the fact that the mothers today are not always the primary care givers. Men are much more involved with their children nowadays than before (not all men, but many more men!) and often times, men are providing a large chunk of the care to their children.

 

I have a friend who was recently a BH and his exW was horrid to him - she kept insisting that he should have LESS than 50% of the time with his children, even though he was their primary caregiver throughout their lives. He was the one that got them up and around in the mornings, did their homework with them, cooked for them, attended their school functions, etc. - yet, she thought bc she was the mother that she should have more than half the time with them.

 

He fought it tooth and nail and basically said - take whatever you want, but I will not settle for anything less than 50% of the time with my kids bc that is half what I deserve and I'm ALREADY settling. I totally see what he was saying.

 

Any parent that is any kind of parent wants time with their kids. As much time as they can get - they don't want to miss those special occasions and moments and growing and learning - they are just as much a parent as the other person. So, I get it - I get why people want to stay and keep that access.

 

I do agree with you however, that most times, it creates a hostile environment that can be toxic to the kids, and I disagree with staying for the kids for that reason. I will say, my exMM is very involved with his children and spent a lot of time with them playing and such -and last I spoke with him, he said that is THE hardest thing about the divorce. Not having them in the house when he falls asleep - and wakes up. Not getting to chat with them in the mornings over breakfast, or after school over a snack. He HATES it.

 

And imo, it IS a crappy deal just because your relationship with your SO didn't work out that you lose that time with your children. Or, you are forced to stay because you won't give that time with your kids up and then you are miserable.

 

I think it's a very real consideration for the WSs - and may be the only reason that some of them stay as long as they do in the marriage. I remember my exMM asking me about age appropriateness in regards to his children - when I thought they would be old enough that he could sit them down and talk to them about him leaving their mother. He was waiting for a "better" time to do it, when they were older and would understand better. Thankfully, his children were old enough and have adjusted VERY well to the situation, and are much more at ease now that exMM and his exW aren't in a cold relationship around them.

 

I just find it very interesting that the common belief here is that the WS is lying when they say they stay for the kids - but the BS is telling the truth - and it seems it is not questioned that this double standard exists. Very interesting.

[AnotherRound]

Another Round,

 

I can agree that there are times when a MM says he is and stays for the children. I do think that's very true. I can also see where there may be a financial incentive for BOTH of them to stay in the marriage. Divorces are very expensive.

 

My point, badly made, is that I think it is an easy excuse as well. It's an excuse that is genuinely a palatable one. Further, I think there is an incentive for a MM to leave - he's got a soft spot to land - where the same incentive may not be there for a BS, especially if she doesn't know that there is anything going on.

 

But you are absolutely correct. Some do stay for their children and they mean it when they say it. If you think about it, if it were unequivocally not true, then no one would believe it when others lied about it. And there are incentives for the spouse to stay outside of the children.

 

But I would argue that when one person has an outside interest and D-day happens, the incentive for the one with the outside interest to go is much stronger than the one who does not have such an interest.

 

Again, badly made point and I am glad that you called me on it!

 

Oh, I wasn't calling you on it, it was a well made and well taken point! I was just curious if you believed it to be absolutely true or not.

 

I agree with the above post wholeheartedly. Thank you for discussing!

[underwater2010]

Notice I said a factor...not the only reason.

[cocorico]

Fortunately, in more enlightened countries, courts consider the best interest of the children rather than the best interests of the BS, and primary (or even full, depending on circumstances) custody can be awarded to the MM who is the primary carer, or more involved parent.

[seren]

I think some WS and some BS stay for the sake of the children, generally men tend to not get custody and I have seen IRL how the children can get caught up in the explosion that D Day brings. In most IRL, cases where a marriage has held after D Day JUST for the children it has ended pretty soon afterwards. Mosy entailed putting a sticking plaster over the A, trying to maintain a happy parents face is simply not possible if the marriage is in tatters.

 

Not many BS are prepared to share the WS with the AP, none I know and certainly not many WS are prepared for the BS to have a relationship as a, we stay together, share the children, put on a happy facade, but both have freedom to see other people agreement. Once the A is out there, it is either reconcile and all that takes, leave to be with the AP, or agree to an open marriage.

 

It would be naive to think a marriage could survive any length of time after D Day simply for the children, I can see some doing so initially, but long term? not in my experience. Marriages break up all the time, good parents work out their differences and put the children first and go on to have great relationships.

 

Do some WS use the children as an excuse not to leave the marriage? I am sure they do, I am also sure some don't and those would be the one's that in the future see all parties being able to get along for the sake of the children. As an XBS, had H come home and said he had fallen in love with someone else I would have had far more respect than finding out he had told an AP that he was staying for the children, especially if while he had been saying that, he had been showing me something entirely different and maybe there is your answer AR. Many BS disbelieve the staying for the children excuse as they have been shown love, shared future plans and not had a clue there was anything wrong while the WS was saying otherwise to the AP. Who truly knows other than the one doing the telling.

[beenburned]

coco,

 

Where I live it is the Mother's that are the primary caretaker of the children.

That is why more women here get primary custody when there is a divorce.

[Got it]

I think some WS and some BS stay for the sake of the children, generally men tend to not get custody and I have seen IRL how the children can get caught up in the explosion that D Day brings. In most IRL, cases where a marriage has held after D Day JUST for the children it has ended pretty soon afterwards. Mosy entailed putting a sticking plaster over the A, trying to maintain a happy parents face is simply not possible if the marriage is in tatters.

 

Not many BS are prepared to share the WS with the AP, none I know and certainly not many WS are prepared for the BS to have a relationship as a, we stay together, share the children, put on a happy facade, but both have freedom to see other people agreement. Once the A is out there, it is either reconcile and all that takes, leave to be with the AP, or agree to an open marriage.

 

It would be naive to think a marriage could survive any length of time after D Day simply for the children, I can see some doing so initially, but long term? not in my experience. Marriages break up all the time, good parents work out their differences and put the children first and go on to have great relationships.

 

Do some WS use the children as an excuse not to leave the marriage? I am sure they do, I am also sure some don't and those would be the one's that in the future see all parties being able to get along for the sake of the children. As an XBS, had H come home and said he had fallen in love with someone else I would have had far more respect than finding out he had told an AP that he was staying for the children, especially if while he had been saying that, he had been showing me something entirely different and maybe there is your answer AR. Many BS disbelieve the staying for the children excuse as they have been shown love, shared future plans and not had a clue there was anything wrong while the WS was saying otherwise to the AP. Who truly knows other than the one doing the telling.

 

I believe my parents did stay together for the kids for another almost 2 decades. Also because financially they couldn't afford to separate. But there were no smiling faces and fake happiness, you are correct there. My father was the BS, he couldn't afford the child support and alimony and my mom was willing to stay married. So they did until the youngest went to college and then they divorced. Some people can stay/do stay in limbo for the rest of the marriage.

[LFH]

My H told xOW that what he really wanted was to work on his marriage. He also told her that even if things between him and I did not work out he still could never be with her again because his kids would never ever accept her now.

 

Did he, or is that what he told you? Were you able you speak with her? Confirm this?

Edited March 16, 2013 by a LoveShack.org Moderator

[Act Two]

I believe my parents did stay together for the kids for another almost 2 decades. Also because financially they couldn't afford to separate. But there were no smiling faces and fake happiness, you are correct there. My father was the BS, he couldn't afford the child support and alimony and my mom was willing to stay married. So they did until the youngest went to college and then they divorced. Some people can stay/do stay in limbo for the rest of the marriage.

 

That's going to be me. We are supposed to be separated but our birds nest custody arrangement is falling apart, we can't afford two residences, and we have a sick child. We also aren't reconciling. God help me if we are stuck in limbo forever.

[Got it]

That's going to be me. We are supposed to be separated but our birds nest custody arrangement is falling apart, we can't afford two residences, and we have a sick child. We also aren't reconciling. God help me if we are stuck in limbo forever.

 

Act - I am sorry. I can understand the position you guys are in. I know being a child in that situation, at least with my parents and the way they handled it, it is miserable growing up like that. I have always said that things were very cyclical in our house, they would have fights, some of them blow out, they would then maybe make up and hit a calm for awhile and/or go straight to not speaking to each other, tensions would build until we hit blow up again. Ugh.

 

The FEW times we saw them affectionate with each other, all of the kids said, it was like a crime against nature. It was so unnatural to see them kiss it actually made our skin crawl. They have divorced now and are much better. They have similarities, have similar sense of humor, political views, etc where they can be friendly with no issues. The pressure of being the other's romantic partner is off and so things are calm and very congenial.