Bad with money? Doomed to die alone!

[Firebird]

Not everyone does it, sure. But I've been a YM community member since 2004, and there are too many posters who needed to make themselves feel better.

When I read your posts about money troubles in your relationship, the problem almost always seems to come back to your feelings about your DF. At times, it really comes across like you feel nothing but contempt for her money management style. It's one thing to have different money values, but it's quite another to think that your partner is a total moron because they can't manage money well, and that is the impression I often get from you.

So if you are getting posters that are saying you might have chosen poorly when you picked DF, I'd bet they're getting the same impression I am and that's why they're saying that. I might not be crazy about DBF's personal money management style, but I don't look down on him for it. If I did, that would be a major problem and we would be poorly matched.

I'm not saying that you and DF are poorly matched - only you can say that - but if that's what you're hearing from posters, that might be where it's coming from. I could never live with someone who despised a major part of who I was.

Just my unsolicited 2 cents.

[8 Bit WWBG]

Read the "fiance not on board" thread on Smart Spending, and see some responses that instantly go in the "its your fault, this is who he is" direction.

And the attitude is not just restricted to relationships. On the old boards, threads about CC debt would almost always attract at least ONE person who had to say "I ALWAYS pay in full, I'm better than you". It is very hard to get advice on fixing a problem, when you have to weed through others telling you how stupid you are for having the problem in the first place.

...:::"At times, it really comes across like you feel nothing but contempt for her money management style.":::...

What I have contempt for is how we are now in the process of "paying the piper" for all those times I told her "if we do this, we'll have to pay the piper". Yes, I have a LOT of resent for that and probably always will.

...:::"but it's quite another to think that your partner is a total moron because they can't manage money well":::...

More for making poor, shortsighted choices. There are plenty of people on here frustrated by their spouses choices to prioritize today over tomorrow. I suppose a key difference is: how much funding are you going to provide towards that end.

[raeoflyte]

Mar 3, 2011 16:53:23 GMT -5 Firebird said:

Thats exactly why I say we should rewrite vows so they say what we really mean from the very beginning. If we aren't going to stay together no matter what, then why say so?

That's part of the reason I want to write my own vows. I don't intend to stay with DBF for better or worse in the largest sense. To put it simply, I intend to stay with him for whatever better or worse life throws at us, which is different in my mind from giving him license to sink us and going down with the ship because I promised. Nor would I expect that sort of accommodation from him.

For example, if we lose a house because we have a fire, that's nobody's fault and of course we'll stick it out and get through it together. If we lose a house because I'm a drug addict and I put one too many mortgage payments up my nose, I think my husband would be perfectly entitled to a divorce. Same basic effect, very different causes.

I've always liked the simple, 'for as long as love shall bind us.' I think it's rather out-dated to expect 'till death do us part' in this day and age. Besides, who wants to stay with someone they don't love anymore?

[shanendoah]

I should look at my vows, they're around somewhere. I know we promised to always be friends, but DH refuses to say forever about anything, so I know that's not in there. (He says "foreseeable future", which I'm okay with, because the bank says the forseeable future is 30 years, which is longer than either of our parents' marriages lasted.)

I actually manage all of our daily accounts because I'm the one that is worse with money. DH is a saver. I am a spender (working on this). If I don't see the money going out - don't see the balance going down on my excel spreadsheet, it just flows through my hands. (This is why I don't get to carry cash around - once its marked off my spreadsheet, its already spent and therefore can be frittered away.)
So I keep track of the finances. Since I know where we are money wise, it helps me control my desire to spend. I often get wild ideas about travel that we can technically afford, and DH has to talk me out of it. In fact, I bring up the ideas specifically so he can talk me out of it.

[Firebird]

And the attitude is not just restricted to relationships. On the old boards, threads about CC debt would almost always attract at least ONE person who had to say "I ALWAYS pay in full, I'm better than you". It is very hard to get advice on fixing a problem, when you have to weed through others telling you how stupid you are for having the problem in the first place.

I don't like posts that default to ad hominem, but a lot of the posts that I read are designed to attack the root of the problem, not just the symptom that finally made the person sit up and take notice.

Yes, you're going to get people who call you a moron whatever you do, and that's unfortunate. But there's a whole wide world between, "If you hadn't made x choice, you wouldn't be in this position and you should try to avoid making x choice in the future, which starts with recognizing that x was a bad choice" and "You're a moron for being in this position, whereas I am so completely freaking awesome it's even hard for ME to deal with sometimes."

The latter tone annoys me too.

What I have contempt for is how we are now in the process of "paying the piper" for all those times I told her "if we do this, we'll have to pay the piper". Yes, I have a LOT of resent for that and probably always will.

I'd be upset too! But I asked you in another thread why you let it happen, and you named your reasons. You said you were being passive-aggressive, you hoped you'd beat the odds, etc. You didn't deny your own responsibility in letting things proceed as they did.

Maybe it's just me, but I don't understand how you can be that self-aware and still direct so much of your anger toward DF. You both agreed to get into the situation that you're in now, so how can you continue to be angrier with her than you are with yourself for making poor, shortsighted choices?

[tloonya]

cael
it must had been love that made him behave.
Others...sorry.

[Firebird]

Mar 3, 2011 17:16:09 GMT -5 raeoflyte said:

Mar 3, 2011 16:53:23 GMT -5 Firebird said:

Thats exactly why I say we should rewrite vows so they say what we really mean from the very beginning. If we aren't going to stay together no matter what, then why say so?

That's part of the reason I want to write my own vows. I don't intend to stay with DBF for better or worse in the largest sense. To put it simply, I intend to stay with him for whatever better or worse life throws at us, which is different in my mind from giving him license to sink us and going down with the ship because I promised. Nor would I expect that sort of accommodation from him.

For example, if we lose a house because we have a fire, that's nobody's fault and of course we'll stick it out and get through it together. If we lose a house because I'm a drug addict and I put one too many mortgage payments up my nose, I think my husband would be perfectly entitled to a divorce. Same basic effect, very different causes.

I've always liked the simple, 'for as long as love shall bind us.' I think it's rather out-dated to expect 'till death do us part' in this day and age. Besides, who wants to stay with someone they don't love anymore?

I think your definition of love is quite a bit different from the general population's, raeoflyte, so perhaps that would work for you.

But for most people, I don't really get the point of marriage if you're just going to bail when you don't feel like you're in love anymore. That's a cop-out to me. Love is a decision, not a feeling, and if I marry someone I am going to promise to continue to decide to love them for the rest of my life, unless they do something that negates my obligation to make that decision.

If DBF ever became DH and then became a drug addict, I would probably still love him, but you can bet I wouldn't be sticking around. Likewise, if we're going through one shitstorm after another and it's changing both of us for the worse and I don't "love" him anymore, I'm still going to stick by him. Either way, love has nothing to do with my decision to go or stay.

[8 Bit WWBG]

...:::"You both agreed to get into the situation that you're in now, so how can you continue to be angrier with her than you are with yourself for making poor, shortsighted choices?":::...

Well I could try and argue this logically -- that while I do share some of the blame, I do not believe it is 50%. If we'd done what I said we should do, we wouldn't be in this mess. But arguing these things logically is the one mistake I made consistently, that I refuse to keep making. I can be angry for any damn thing I want to be angry about. I can bring it up no matter how far in the past it is, or how "resolved" it is. If I've learned one thing over the years, it is that there is no such thing as fair, or rational, when it comes to emotion. I am permitted to feel how I want without it having any basis whatsoever, no matter how unreasonable anyone else thinks it is.

Maybe tomorrow, I won't care about this at all, and then 3 weeks later, I'll be mad again.

...:::"But for most people, I don't really get the point of marriage if you're just going to bail when you don't feel like you're in love anymore.":::...

Well if you figure out a way for someone to know for certain if they will stay in love for life, or if not, when they will fall out of love, then you patent and sell it.

[Firebird]

Well I could try and argue this logically -- that while I do share some of the blame, I do not believe it is 50%. If we'd done what I said we should do, we wouldn't be in this mess. But arguing these things logically is the one mistake I made consistently, that I refuse to keep making. I can be angry for any damn thing I want to be angry about. I can bring it up no matter how far in the past it is, or how "resolved" it is. If I've learned one thing over the years, it is that there is no such thing as fair, or rational, when it comes to emotion. I am permitted to feel how I want without it having any basis whatsoever, no matter how unreasonable anyone else thinks it is.

Granted, 100%. I just question how you can love DF, and express that love to her, through all that negative feeling. Of course you're entitled to be mad and feel resentful and whatever else you need to feel. I guess I just wonder if it's worth it? For me, it wouldn't be. If I was as angry with DBF as you seem to be with DF on a daily basis, there would have to be a damn compelling reason I was still in the relationship.

Like the car thing I just wrote about on the other thread - I was furious when that happened, for several weeks. But at some point, I was like - I can either let this go and move on, and not worry constantly about whether or not it's going to happen again someday, OR I can keep stewing about it and feeling angry and resentful and making DBF feel bad about it.

Both decisions would have long-term consequences. Every day, you lay the groundwork for how the rest of your life with your partner is going to go. If I couldn't let this go - how could I expect DBF to let go of his feelings about the enormous mistake I'll no doubt make someday?

You're entitled to your feelings, yes, but you can also choose them. You can CHOOSE not to be angry anymore. You don't HAVE to, obviously, but why WOULDN'T you? In a relationship there is a greater good.

...:::"But for most people, I don't really get the point of marriage if you're just going to bail when you don't feel like you're in love anymore.":::...

Well if you figure out a way for someone to know for certain if they will stay in love for life, or if not, when they will fall out of love, then you patent and sell it.

My point is that I just don't think it MATTERS whether two people are "in love" once they've made marriage vows. I don't think it matters if they "fall out of love." I don't think it matters how they FEEL about their partners on a day to day basis at all. Marriage is a commitment. If you want to keep making decisions based on how you feel, then DON'T MAKE A COMMITMENT THAT REQUIRES YOU TO OVERRIDE FEELINGS.

If you make a commitment to stay together for life no matter what, then you should live up to that commitment. If you only want to stay together until you're not in love anymore, then DON'T TAKE VOWS THAT PROMISE YOU'LL STAY TOGETHER UNTIL DEATH. Just live together, for God's sake.

This is a sore point of mine, in case you couldn't tell. My grandmother just died of an illness that caused her decades of suffering on the level of a concentration camp. For much of that time, because she was so miserable, she treated her husband (who was also her loyal and loving and endlessly patient caretaker) like CRAP. She was horrible to him, and I'm quite certain that he did not feel like he was "in love" with her a lot of days. I'm quite certain that he wasn't happy. I'm quite certain that he was just as miserable as she was.

So according to modern mentality, he should have just left. Because if you're not in love, then it doesn't really matter if you promised you would be there. Obviously not being in love is a good enough reason to walk out on someone.

Luckily, my grandpa understands true love and he didn't walk away. He stuck by her side until the bitter end, and he misses her very much now that she's gone. We all do.

[Cookies Galore]

Mar 3, 2011 14:23:50 GMT -5 Firebird said:

Mar 2, 2011 21:22:37 GMT -5 Cookies Galore said:

So sorry to read this, but I thank you for posting your story. My BF has a terrible money history and as much as we talk about marriage, I am scared shitless of marrying him anytime soon. I'm not going anywhere and we are committed to one another, and he is making strides in righting his wrongs, but I still think being committed in a non-legal way is the way for us for the forseeable future. I believe in getting the milk for free, so to speak. ;D

Meghan, I thought you didn't believe in marriage? This post is news to me.

When we drink we talk about it, I don't think we've had a serious marriage talk when sober yet.
I shouldn't say I don't "believe" in it, I just don't believe my relationship is lesser than yours (general you) because we didn't sign a sheet of paper.
I'm fond of saying "Why buy the pig when I'm getting the sausage for free?" ;D

[Firebird]

I'm fond of saying "Why buy the pig when I'm getting the sausage for free?" ;D

ROFLMFAO!!!!!

[Cookies Galore]

You may commandeer that phrase. ;D

[Firebird]

Oh, I will. I'm still giggling...

[Plain Old Petunia]

Mar 3, 2011 19:29:47 GMT -5 Cookies Galore said:

I'm fond of saying "Why buy the pig when I'm getting the sausage for free?" ;D

Amen.

[The J]

Because if you're not in love, then it doesn't really matter if you promised you would be there. Obviously not being in love is a good enough reason to walk out on someone.

Luckily, my grandpa understands true love and he didn't walk away.

But if it's "true love" then he loves her.

[Firebird]

Precisely - you don't have to be "in love" to continue to choose to love someone. That's my point. Too many people give up as soon as that "in love" feeling goes away, rather than continue to choose to love them.

[The J]

Precisely - you don't have to be "in love" to continue to choose to love someone. That's my point. Too many people give up as soon as that "in love" feeling goes away, rather than continue to choose to love them.

But I disagree with your notion that love is simply a choice. It's possible to love somebody at one point and not love them in the future. Just because I loved person X, doesn't mean that it was "true love", or that I made a choice to stop loving them.

[zibazinski]

I think you lose respect first and then love just naturally goes away without you even being conscious that it has until one day you wake up and you feel nothing for your partner.

[Firebird]

But I disagree with your notion that love is simply a choice. It's possible to love somebody at one point and not love them in the future. Just because I loved person X, doesn't mean that it was "true love", or that I made a choice to stop loving them.

It's MORE THAN a choice, but it's naive to say that it's "not a choice." You love your kids no matter what, right? You might not always like them, you might not always feel like you love them, but you still keep them around and in your life and you continue to provide for them and be their parent. You CHOOSE to continue loving them even when you don't FEEL it.

Granted, your threshold for choosing to love your child even when they're being despicable is much higher than the threshold most people have for their spouse, because a child is your responsibility. But I think that being a spouse is a responsibility too. And if you're not prepared to take it on, to continue to choose to love someone even when they're making your life miserable, what is the point of signing on for a lifelong covenant?

As WWBG said, why should you promise to love someone no matter what if you're adding a mental "unless x happens" to that statement? Why not just promise to love them UNLESS X HAPPENS?

You have to choose to give up on your spouse. You have to choose to stop loving them. And once you're married, I just don't think that is a choice you're free to make simply because the loving feeling is gone.

[8 Bit WWBG]

...:::"I can either let this go and move on, and not worry constantly about whether or not it's going to happen again someday, OR I can keep stewing about it and feeling angry and resentful and making DBF feel bad about it. ":::...

So it never ever ever ever EVER makes you mad whatsoever? If he makes a mistake that is similar to the car mistake, that anger and frustration wouldn't return?

...:::"You can CHOOSE not to be angry anymore.":::...

I have no idea how to choose not to be angry about something I am angry about.

...:::"If you want to keep making decisions based on how you feel, then DON'T MAKE A COMMITMENT THAT REQUIRES YOU TO OVERRIDE FEELINGS. ":::...

I think we are shooting for the same goal. Marriage has become a joke because many people do enter into it planning to leave when it no longer benefits them. That is very sad, but it is also a reflection of people's self-centered values.

[Firebird]

So it never ever ever ever EVER makes you mad whatsoever? If he makes a mistake that is similar to the car mistake, that anger and frustration wouldn't return?

Well, like I said in another thread it came up again last night - and no, I wasn't mad about it anymore. If it happens again, not only will the anger and frustration return - we will more than likely be done. Never say never, but I told him I'm not going to spend my life with someone who won't be honest with me about problems until it's too late for me to help fix them. He gets this.

So yes, it would be a major problem if it ever happened again - but so what? Does that mean I should spend my life fearing that maybe someday he'll do it again? I don't want to live that way. I just decided to move on and assume it will never happen again.

I have no idea how to choose not to be angry about something I am angry about.

It takes practice, for sure. I'm no expert at it - I had to start by learning to CONTROL my anger before I could even begin to learn how to contain it.

Therapy can help. Writing out a pro-con list about your partner, as cold as that sounds, can help. Venting to someone uninvolved in the situation can help. Behavior modification can help.

With the car thing, I had to let myself be mad for awhile. I had a little bit of a leg up in this - DBF wasn't around at the time. He was out of town for a few weeks, so I didn't have to constantly see him while I was processing my anger. I didn't talk to him much. I tried to focus my energy on fixing the problem.

When he came back, I had calmed down enough that I could talk about it with him, at which point I needed to be satisfied that he understood how badly his actions hurt me and hurt us. That part took awhile, but once we got there, there was nothing else to be mad about. He made a mistake, we fixed it, and he's promised never to do it again.

One more thing that helped was that DBF has been in a similar position. I did a terrible thing to him last year, something over which he quite rightly almost broke up with me. But he was able to forgive me and move on, so in a way it felt like it was "my turn." That helped a little bit as well.

There are lots of things that can help you get over your anger. It's not something that I can just say "oh, well, you do x, y, and z and then the anger is gone." It's a hard thing to do - but that doesn't mean it isn't worth doing.

[raeoflyte]

Firebird--I'll be the first to admit that I don't believe in marriage. Mine is 'legal' because it is the cheapest way to get legal rights and responsibilities that we felt we needed once we were pregnant. Neither the piece of paper, or the ceremony changed our relationship.

I'm sorry for the loss of your Grandmother, and very sorry that she suffered so much.

If that were to happen to DH, I think and hope, that I too would stay by his side. I'm fairly confident that I could do this because my grandfather's dementia got out of hand and he acted like a monster. I still loved my grandfather very much. I hated the disease that took him away from me.

I consider this to be one of the worst case scenario's, and I don't think I could leave a spouse that truly couldn't take care of themselves through no fault of their own (alcoholism, drug abuse, etc. might be different).

I absolutely choose to love dh. But if we were to grow apart and no longer find joy being together I would rather move on, then spend my life unhappy. I'm assuming I would still love him, but sometimes love isn't binding. And boy do I hope that doesn't happen at this point, because even if love isn't binding--kid's are.

I'm curious what vows you would want to write? I don't think that your view is wrong--but admittedly I'm surprised to hear it from someone in your age group. (I'm pretty sure you're younger than me and have your head on a lot straighter than I ever did).

[Firebird]

I think we are shooting for the same goal. Marriage has become a joke because many people do enter into it planning to leave when it no longer benefits them. That is very sad, but it is also a reflection of people's self-centered values.

Agreed. I think it's also a reflection of how little people's word seems to mean these days.

[Firebird]

I'm sorry for the loss of your Grandmother, and very sorry that she suffered so much.

Thank you very much. I really appreciate you saying that. It's been a tough time, although of course I am relieved she is at peace now and doesn't have to suffer anymore.

I consider this to be one of the worst case scenario's, and I don't think I could leave a spouse that truly couldn't take care of themselves through no fault of their own (alcoholism, drug abuse, etc. might be different).

I wrote about this when it was happening - that before my grandma got sick, I had no real understanding of what "till death do us part" really meant. I had no conception of how tough that was, or how awful it could be. I wrote about how strange it was to see what my grandparents were going through as the "best case scenario" - i.e., a successful marriage - because from where I was sitting, it looked hellish.

I agree with you though, that's what the words "for better or worse" mean to me. Not whatever "worse" you deliberately bring on us or our family - whatever "worse" life throws at us. For the latter, I'll be there.

I absolutely choose to love dh. But if we were to grow apart and no longer find joy being together I would rather move on, then spend my life unhappy. I'm assuming I would still love him, but sometimes love isn't binding. And boy do I hope that doesn't happen at this point, because even if love isn't binding--kid's are.

Agreed. And while I might not agree with it, I can understand marrying just for the legal benefit even if you don't truly believe in the concept. It's an option available, and a good one for couples with children (random question - did DH have to legally change genders before you could marry him? What does that entail, exactly?)

I'm curious what vows you would want to write? I don't think that your view is wrong--but admittedly I'm surprised to hear it from someone in your age group. (I'm pretty sure you're younger than me and have your head on a lot straighter than I ever did).

Thank you, that's flattering! I just turned 25 ;D

I think my vows will somehow communicate what I've been writing here - I will stay with my husband for the best and the worst that life has to throw at us.

I don't know how I'll work this in, but I want the vows to be very clear that I do NOT promise to stick by him if he decides to bring ruin on our family. Mistakes, sure, we all make mistakes - but deliberate, systematic destruction of everything we have worked for and built together is not something I'm promising to stand by and watch, nor do I expect him to allow me to do it.

[raeoflyte]

He did have to legally change genders on paperwork in order for us to get married. Each state has different requirements, but it boils down to a letter from a medical professional confirming that the person has changed genders, and isn't going back...

The government can and will anull our marriage if they ever link his gender change to our marriage license. It isn't likely to happen unless we tried to claim SS on the others income. Getting documents drawn up by a family law attorney was more than we could afford, so we took the $10 marriage license route.

[Firebird]

The government can and will anull our marriage if they ever link his gender change to our marriage license. It isn't likely to happen unless we tried to claim SS on the others income. Getting documents drawn up by a family law attorney was more than we could afford, so we took the $10 marriage license route.

I hadn't thought of that but I suppose it makes sense, although it's hard to imagine that someone would go through that just for the right to get married and claim SS benefits

[shanendoah]

Firebird: I've actually kept quite for a while while I thought about how I wanted to say this. And it comes down to this, you are a very lucky young lady whose view of marriage comes from a priveleged place. And I honestly hope nothing ever happens in your life to change that view.

I come from a different place. My mother divorced my father when I was in middle school, precisely because she didn't love him enough to stay married anymore. There wasn't any abuse or an affair, there wasn't money being hidden from people. And my father, despite the fact that my mother had fought tooth and nail for the marriage when he wanted a divorce, and claiming he didn't want the divorce, let her walk away.
And it had a deep and profound effect on my brother and I. I can not and will not ever try to pretend it didn't.
It took a long time, but now, my parents could be friends again (would be if it weren't for the step-mom) and have a good relationship that allows them to be comfortable around each other when either my brother or I have important life events.

On the other side, my aunt and her husband have been out of love very possibly since before their youngest was born. They haven't shared a room in 15+ years, but they chose to stay together "for the kids" and to "honor their vows". And I will tell you what - my brother and I, no matter how profoundly we were effected by our parents' divorce, are no where near as messed up as my cousins. They constantly feel like that have to take sides between their parents.
When I visit, I consciously make efforts to make positive comments about their father, because no one else on our side of the family will. His family won't make positive comments about their mother. My aunt and uncle can barely stand to be in the same room with one another, even during important events (like graduations) in their childrens' lives.
They made a choice to "honor their vows" above honoring themselves, and its destroying everyone in their family.

People change. Sometimes they grow together and parallel, and sometimes they grow apart. Yes, marriage is a choice, but staying married is NOT always the right choice, even when there is no abuse, no infidelity, no financial shenanigans.

[Sum Dum Gai]

Word! That's really all I have to add to that. Well said.

[Firebird]

Firebird: I've actually kept quite for a while while I thought about how I wanted to say this. And it comes down to this, you are a very lucky young lady whose view of marriage comes from a priveleged place. And I honestly hope nothing ever happens in your life to change that view.

I'm not arguing that I grew up with privilege, or that I have great parents who love each other very much, but it's not like I've only witnessed perfect marriages. My own parents' marriage is far from perfect. Couples have divorced over much less than some of the things my parents have gone through together, and that's just for starters.

I have family members who are married to alcoholics, drug addicts, extraordinarily sick people whose illnesses make everyone's lives hell on a daily basis, mentally ill people, abusive people. I also have family members who have divorced such people. I've seen the marriage thing from a lot of angles.

And I've seen people get through an awful lot of things that are usually cited as "irreconcilable differences." Things I'm not sure I myself could get through with a partner. Things I'm not sure I would tolerate.

I can see where it might come across like I have a naive view of what marriage means, but I personally don't think I do. It's not based on personal experience, true, but it's based on what I've seen and I've seen quite a bit.

My view about marriage is a lot like my view on abortion. Yes, I think there are plenty of kids that shouldn't be born - but to me, the best solution is not "Let's encourage people to abort children they can't support!" but rather "Let's encourage people NOT TO CONCEIVE children they can't support." Similarly, I agree with you that there are plenty of people that shouldn't stay married - but that's because they shouldn't have gotten married to begin with, and I don't think the automatic solution to that situation is "we should get a divorce."

More and more, that's becoming the automatic solution. More and more, people are willing to jump ship on vows they no doubt thought they meant at the time, just because it isn't working anymore. I think that's a pretty cheap view of marriage, and I won't apologize for thinking that.

I'm not saying that's not ultimately the right choice for many or even most people who are no longer "in love." Who am I to say what's right for someone else? I'm saying that we should be more careful about who we marry in the first place before taking vows we clearly don't really mean.

I object more to the making of a promise that is not intended to be kept than I object to the breaking of the promise itself.

FWIW, I think you guys did it right. The word "forever" shouldn't be in marriage vows if it's not the word that you mean.

[Firebird]

On the other side, my aunt and her husband have been out of love very possibly since before their youngest was born. They haven't shared a room in 15+ years, but they chose to stay together "for the kids" and to "honor their vows". And I will tell you what - my brother and I, no matter how profoundly we were effected by our parents' divorce, are no where near as messed up as my cousins. They constantly feel like that have to take sides between their parents.

Something else that occurred to me as I reread your post, and maybe I shouldn't say this since I don't know the situation, but I get the impression that your aunt and uncle were playing martyr for the duration of their marriage. I could be wrong, and if I am, disregard the rest of this post.

Every kid who has martyr parents is going to suffer for it. EVERY KID. Martyr parents are always going to make their kids feel guilty for all of the horrible suffering they have to go through on the kids' behalf no matter what. If they're unhappily married, they're going to make the kids feel guilty over how bad the marriage is that they're suffering through for them. If they're divorced, they're going to make the kids feel guilty over how much things cost for divorced parents when they're supporting kids on their own. Etc.

A couple who isn't even going to try to work at their marriage might as well divorce. That's a hell of a lot better than making the kids live in a war zone where they have to constantly take sides, and I wouldn't say otherwise.

But if they had been divorced, the kids would probably still feel like they had to take sides and they'd probably still be really messed up over everything, because martyr parents really screw with their kids regardless of the circumstances.

It takes bad parent to mess up a kid, not a bad marriage.