mothballedaccount
New member
Thanks for your recent comments.
Most of the recent comments discuss why option (6) is better than option (1), and I just wanted to address why my wife and I have both reached the opposite conclusion (independently, and with support from therapists).
As a preliminary point, how "good" each of those two options are is not "fixed" for all cases. Some relationships may be toxic, making (1) a very bad option, but others may be warm and affectionate, with just a degree of dissatisfaction due to something missing, making (1) quite good. Similarly, the circumstances in some cases may be such that option (6) is good (a couple separating with no children or joint assets, and for whom they no longer see each other romantically anyway), while others where it would be very traumatic.
It is certainly true that our relationship has been through the mill, and has involved cheating. Those were incredibly dark times which directly resulted from my inability to deal with my wife's lack of sexual desire towards me. I think it is fair to say that I dealt with it incredibly badly at the time, and made myself more or less unlovable in my bitterness. However, we have both moved on light-years from that in the past 18 months, and have built our relationship up to the point where we have a level of affection, mutual support and companionship which is far beyond that of "friendship". We still go out on dates (just the two of us), buy each other thoughtful gifts, and we have the greatest common (and altruistic) purpose in the world - to give our children the best possible upbringing. Yes, the lack of sex/desire is a non-trivial issue, but I don't think that you could really label the relationship as making us miserable - mostly just frustrated. So, for us, option (1) is not so bad.
If we look at option (6), it is of course possible to separate gracefully, or even to adopt a "parenting marriage" (based on mutual respect and purpose, with no real sense of "us" outside of bringing up the children). There are anecdotes of successes in this regard in some of your posts.
But taking the wider view, these anecdotes are not the norm. I suspect that to have a healthy separation my wife and I would require distance from each other, which is inherently inconsistent with any form of pro-active co-parenting. It is clear from my posts that I can't cope with her being with another man - I'm still totally in love with this woman. If we were to decide to separate, those feelings are not going to go away, and the chances of us being able to remain as a cohesive unit when she meets a new romantic partner are very low.
There are practical reasons too. My children are at private school, and we push our financial capabilities to the extreme to make that possible, and to be able to give them a wide range of life experiences. We simply won't be able to afford this if we separate. This isn't putting money before happiness, its a recognition that there would be a lifestyle and educational downgrade for our children.
I have studied all this in incredible detail (when we were much closer to splitting up). Mainstream studies nearly all show that parental separation is only better for the children if the parents relationship was toxic (e.g. with shouting/violence/passive aggressive behaviour/neglect etc.), and otherwise the children are better off if the parents stay together and maintain a functional relationship. Some of the "outside of the box" solutions proposed might have a chance of doing better, but those solutions are very difficult to achieve in practice, and knowing both myself and my wife, probably impossible to achieve for us.
I'm a scientist, and I will always follow where the evidence leads me. And having analysed those two options from a number of different angles I'm driven inevitably to the conclusion that we are probably both best off with option (1). My wife reaches a similar conclusion (although on a much less scientific basis!).
I hope that makes sense to people.
Most of the recent comments discuss why option (6) is better than option (1), and I just wanted to address why my wife and I have both reached the opposite conclusion (independently, and with support from therapists).
As a preliminary point, how "good" each of those two options are is not "fixed" for all cases. Some relationships may be toxic, making (1) a very bad option, but others may be warm and affectionate, with just a degree of dissatisfaction due to something missing, making (1) quite good. Similarly, the circumstances in some cases may be such that option (6) is good (a couple separating with no children or joint assets, and for whom they no longer see each other romantically anyway), while others where it would be very traumatic.
It is certainly true that our relationship has been through the mill, and has involved cheating. Those were incredibly dark times which directly resulted from my inability to deal with my wife's lack of sexual desire towards me. I think it is fair to say that I dealt with it incredibly badly at the time, and made myself more or less unlovable in my bitterness. However, we have both moved on light-years from that in the past 18 months, and have built our relationship up to the point where we have a level of affection, mutual support and companionship which is far beyond that of "friendship". We still go out on dates (just the two of us), buy each other thoughtful gifts, and we have the greatest common (and altruistic) purpose in the world - to give our children the best possible upbringing. Yes, the lack of sex/desire is a non-trivial issue, but I don't think that you could really label the relationship as making us miserable - mostly just frustrated. So, for us, option (1) is not so bad.
If we look at option (6), it is of course possible to separate gracefully, or even to adopt a "parenting marriage" (based on mutual respect and purpose, with no real sense of "us" outside of bringing up the children). There are anecdotes of successes in this regard in some of your posts.
But taking the wider view, these anecdotes are not the norm. I suspect that to have a healthy separation my wife and I would require distance from each other, which is inherently inconsistent with any form of pro-active co-parenting. It is clear from my posts that I can't cope with her being with another man - I'm still totally in love with this woman. If we were to decide to separate, those feelings are not going to go away, and the chances of us being able to remain as a cohesive unit when she meets a new romantic partner are very low.
There are practical reasons too. My children are at private school, and we push our financial capabilities to the extreme to make that possible, and to be able to give them a wide range of life experiences. We simply won't be able to afford this if we separate. This isn't putting money before happiness, its a recognition that there would be a lifestyle and educational downgrade for our children.
I have studied all this in incredible detail (when we were much closer to splitting up). Mainstream studies nearly all show that parental separation is only better for the children if the parents relationship was toxic (e.g. with shouting/violence/passive aggressive behaviour/neglect etc.), and otherwise the children are better off if the parents stay together and maintain a functional relationship. Some of the "outside of the box" solutions proposed might have a chance of doing better, but those solutions are very difficult to achieve in practice, and knowing both myself and my wife, probably impossible to achieve for us.
I'm a scientist, and I will always follow where the evidence leads me. And having analysed those two options from a number of different angles I'm driven inevitably to the conclusion that we are probably both best off with option (1). My wife reaches a similar conclusion (although on a much less scientific basis!).
I hope that makes sense to people.