If you met a married man who was "staying for the sake of the kids"

[Canto]

and you knew that this was the case, what would your opinion be of him if he was seeing other women?

HW that is interesting, what is your distinction between "staying for" and "not leaving because of"? Maybe I misworded my title.

sadly I don't know of any man who has instegated a divorce unless he has a woman lined up to go and live or be with.

Where a woman has instegated the divorce it has been different.

I think IvyKaty is right - I truly think men like to have someone else lined up before they make changes (am aware this is unfair generalisation).

BUT if this is as special for him as it seems to be for the OP then maybe this is what he needs to make a break assuming he is telling the truth (and that's quite a big assumption).

canto I don't want to contribute to your wobbles but if this is a big thing for you then I'd tell him that you'd be happy to have a relationship with him if/when he is single but have nothing personal to do with him otherwise.

I've done the work thing and I know how easy it is to contact the person for a "genuine" work reason when it is really only an excuse to be in contact. The man who totally, totally broke my heart (which seems odd now, to be honest) did so in a similar situation to the one you're in just over ten years ago. He emailed me the other even though we both now work for different companies... He's a genuine, nice guy but he didn't/couldn't leave. He still hasn't and he's still not happy (not that we discuss that, of course).

My point is that if this is something important for you both, he will make the changes necessary for you to be together.

leaving just a partner is easier - they dont really depend on you whereas children do. It is very difficult to seperate the children out of the equation.

When my h had his affair i am sure he told the ow he was only there because of the children and if i am honest i am sure that if there were no children he may well have left.

Also if we had not had children i think i would have found it much easier to leave or have him leave.

I dont think he is staying BECAUSE of the children and i dont think i am putting up with him for their sake either but it is a different partnership when children are involved. I suppose i felt i owed it to them to try and make our marriage work - and he did too probably.
We both were aware that even if we did split we would still have to have some partnership because of the children.

If i honestly thought he was only here now for the children it would not work and actually i think it would be pretty obvious to lots of people. It is a hard act to carry on for years and years.

I also think it is a very cruel thing to do for the children. My parents i think only stayed married for the sake of the children - it was certainly not a marriage of love. I have lost respect for them both actually and they are still living what i see as a miserable life.

So in short i would say any man that says he is staying for the sake of the kids is not being totally truthful and frankly i dont think i would like to know someone like that for long.
And before you jump on my and say my h was not truthful - he wasnt for a while and no i didnt like him at that time (niether did a lot of our friends).
If he is still lying now and is only here for the kids then bigger fool him for wasting his life.

By saying that he is only there for his kids gives him the sympathy vote too - he is playing the victim imo and wants others to compromise their standards and morals to suit himself.

it also gives it that kind of tragic feel.

Poor him having to 'suffer' for his kids - what a martyr.

Its like the other classic line 'if only i had met you before things would have been so different'......

It makes you feel sorry for them and also that you are needed as the only bit of 'fun' they have.

These men do have control over their lives and the way it has turned out - just that too many of us (yes i am guilty of this) make it easy for them.

Happy Woman, I quite agree, especially about the "victim" status. It's all part of a script designed to paint him as a tragic hero; a fundamentally decent, honourable man who is falling on his sword and living in a loveless marriage, because he is such a good father.

His affair is the only "bright" thing in his otherwise dismal life - his crutch to go on living.

What this conveniently overlooks is that a good father doesn't cause the mother of his children pain, doesn't put time with his lover over the opportunity to have family time, doesn't spend the family budget on trysts and trinkets. And the "selfless victim" angle doesn't square with the sheer selfishness involved in having an affair.

What these men never tell you Canto is that the reason they are staying is because they do actually love their wives - they are actually too selfish to live in a sham marriage and would leave if it was one. They derive joy from their marriages, are still having enjoyable and satisfying sex with their wives and their lives are far from dismal. They need you to believe all this nonsense, because they accurately predict that your conscience wouldn't allow you to have a relationship with someone who actually had a pretty good marriage.

The irony is that men would respect women far more if they called their bluff, treated other women as they would like to be treated themselves - and refused to collude with this very hackneyed script.

Men like this pit women against eachother in a ludicrous competition for a very tarnished prize. Please keep telling yourself that you won't be played like this - and have more self-esteem and respect for another woman than he thinks you might.

Again well said whenwill - far better than me.

Which is why i do think the ow is in someway to blame.

The situation is that he knows he is in a loveless marriage the ow is allowed to know he is in a loveless marriage but the wife is not party to this information.

Men have their reasons for telling these lies - usually because they are selfish and think they can have both.

Having thought about this more - men who do say this risk losing the respect of the very people they are 'sacrificing' it all for.
How will his children feel when they find out (which they will when he does leave) that he was actually letting them believe they had a happy normal functioning homelife? Their whole childhood will be a sham?

HW and WWI I really value your input and I think you have made some comments that are very helpful to me.

I know you are both coming from the other side of the fence on this (I am a MN regular and have seen your posts on many threads before). I don;t want to be insensitive to your situations, either.

As I said, taking this man at his word (with some additonal info from other sources which did back it up) my belief was that he was currently staying in the marriage because of his children, despite the fact that both he and his W believed their relationship to have broken down.

My doubts about this were the first thing we ever talked about and yes, he did convince me. There is a pretty valid reason for him staying at the moment, fwiw.

However, I'm still of the view that I could turn out to have been a complete mug for having believed that the "good reason" = his wife being perfectly happy for him to have a relationship with me.

I do have to say that despite my increasing belief that it is nevertheless wrong to do this wrt his children, he is absolutely cast-iron in giving them priority over me - which is what I would expect given that I also have DC and would always put them before him.

We see each other infrequently and only at times when neither of us would normally be with our children, and obviously I have never introduced him to my DC.

Our "break" at the moment was triggered by a few things which happened which led to me believe that perhaps he was having second thoughts about his marriage - and i.e. had not been truthful to me about his feelings for his W / her knowledge of our relationship.

When I challenged him on this (suggested he might be re-thinking things if so he should see if they could reconcile), he was adamant that there was no way this was going to happen.

WWI I particularly think that your comment "The irony is that men would respect women far more if they called their bluff, treated other women as they would like to be treated themselves - and refused to collude with this very hackneyed script" is EXACTLY where I am at with this.

This is far less about HIM and not even about whether or not he has been absolutely honest with me, but in fact seems to have become a matter between his wife and me - which could only be rectified by me knowing from her that she knows about and accepts our relationship.

I think to an extent he knows my feelings on this because I have spoken about it in the past, that I would not be doing this if I thought that she was still committed to the marriage (even if he, clearly, is not).

But perhaps I have not made it clear enough.

If I wasn;t supposed to be walking away, I would be extremely tempted to call him on this.

ASThe irony is that men would respect women far more if they called their bluff, treated other women as they would like to be treated themselves - and refused to collude with this very hackneyed script.

As someone said further down, why do I need all this drama?

I think I am trying to work out whey I did this at all.

Sorry, not sure what happened to the end of my post.

BTW the "victim" mentality rings true although I doubt he is conscious of doing it. I did feel sorry for him.

id think well he would say that.fucking liar

so keep your knickers on and dont go with a married man

Canto, you say you have DC.
Are you married?

No Filo, I am divorced. I think because of that I felt I identified with the whole scenario though.

OMG are you?
DONT put it in the line if you are

The grass is not greener on the other side
He is married !!!
COULD leave but is using the kids AS A EXCUSE
You are`nt the first he is a wanker you one of many
WAKE UP!
ITS WHAT THEY SAY

Im glad you have your own dc's as I think this will keep you more grounded and determined to do the right thing. I have friends who have wasted their most fertile years waiting for their married mens friends children to grow up. It never comes to anything. Often these kind of men pick on women that are in marriages or have children already, Ive noticed a pattern amongst my friends. I wonder why that is?

I myself would tell him I was going to ask his wife, Im pretty sure he would not hassle you after that but will run a mile. Speaking on personal experience he will have a very comfortable life with a wife that has given up her best years to keep house and bring his children up properly, perhaps isnt in her prime anymore. Chances are shes turning a blind eye. He will still be sleeping with her. I bet you any money he would not be cool with his wife taking a lover. And if you are strong and stick to your guns, to be blunt, you will be replaced. Thats the reality.

Why is it always bloody work??!!

It's always 'bloody work' because you spend too many hours there! You spend a lot of time with the same people, without any nagging, wearing nicer clother, being nicer - the grass is going to look greener isn't it!

canto - I also think you should walk away. If you really think you two have something special then you should tell him how you feel, but that you are only prepared to see him once he has moved out of the family home.

I can't imagine a 'special reason' he needs/wants to stay there at the moment could be, where he couldn't help with whilst not living there.

There is a difference in staying for the children and because of the children. If someone stays for the children they think are doing what is best for the children (rightly or wrongly) if they are staying because of the children, then they don't want to lose daily contact with them - access is not the same as living with them all the time. However, IMO, if this is the route you choose, then I think you should also choose to be 'single' and not bring someone else into the mix.