Which is more important, your relationship with your child(ren) or your spouse?

[Umaro]

It seems to me that when a couple has children, they are each substantially more attached to the children than they are to each other. This is one of the reasons that I don't ever want kids. Is that really how it is? Who are you closer to? If you had to pick one over the other, which side would it fall on? Or any other viewpoints you care to share.

 

[£amb]

It seems to me that when a couple has children, they are each substantially more attached to the children than they are to each other. This is one of the reasons that I don't ever want kids. Is that really how it is? Who are you closer to? If you had to pick one over the other, which side would it fall on? Or any other viewpoints you care to share.

My relationship with my husband is more important to me. Before anybody flips out let me explain:

I am not saying that I treat my children like their second-class citizens, but my relationship differs with them compared to my spouse. As a wife, my husband's relationship is the most important relationship that I will have because it is important to my children. We are to model to them by example what a marriage is supposed to be. If my children came first, then our relationship would not function properly. Sooner or later, you or your spouse would feel neglected and that spells trouble down the road which has no benefit for your kids. Valuing our relationship does not mean we neglect our children because both relationships are very important. We must invest time in our marriage so our children can benefit from a healthy marriage.

I understand the appearance that parents value their children more than each other. Maybe some do, but for most parents, having children does consume your time and in many cases put their needs before you and your spouses.

 

[Chrystal-J]

I'm a widow and my son's an adult. But, I would say my relationship with my husband and my son were equal, but different.
When my son was young, we would go to the park, do arts & crafts, go to the circus, etc.--and had a great time. But, with my husband, I'd go out to eat at nice restaurants, go to art galleries, operas and other things a child probably wouldn't enjoy as much.
I never felt like it was one or the other. I liked being with both of them equally.

 

[ChildByGrace]

relationships with a spouse and with a child are different.
My husband and children are equally important to me but in different ways.
As Crystal said-I enjoy doing different things with with spouse than I do with my children.
Just because I spend more time with my children doesn't mean they are more important.
Also, because children are more dependent on their parent/s makes it seam that we do more for them but we don't. It's just a different dynamic.

 

[white dove]

It seems to me that when a couple has children, they are each substantially more attached to the children than they are to each other. This is one of the reasons that I don't ever want kids. Is that really how it is? Who are you closer to? If you had to pick one over the other, which side would it fall on? Or any other viewpoints you care to share.

I'm not married, but I have a child and I value marriage (hope to be happily married someday), so I hope that my thoughts are welcome here.

I like what's been said so far and I would agree with those who've said there is a different kind of dynamic or relationship between husband/wife and mother/child. It's just different. Children are pretty much entirely dependent upon their parent(s) for so many things. A husband or wife has needs that their spouse fills as well, but again... differently. And needs that can only (or should only) be filled by his or her spouse.


I can see why you would fear this though. There are people whose relationships with their children is borderline idolatry - or juts unhealthy. Yes, children are important. Yes, children come first in many ways (for example, staying home from work to tend to a child who has the flu versus staying home to tend to an adult who has the flu)... but, the marriage relationship cannot be ignored. It must be nurtured, as well. It has its place, too. In fact, the spouse has his or her place. They love and support each other and place each other's needs ahead of their own. Same goes for parents and children, except that dynamic is unique in that children do not, in turn, place their parent's needs ahead of their own. As children grow and mature, they start to have their own interests, play time, socializing time, etc.. They start to gain confidence and their own independence, which is a good thing. They eventually move on to living their own life, independent of their parents and then, they may have children of their own someday. Then what is left? A damaged marriage, if one is present at all at that point? Point being: The children do not and cannot take the place of the husband or wife. They aren't meant to. They are special and loved and valued... but so is the spouse. Dynamics are different, but the core of it is the same: Love.

 

[Umaro]

These are some really insightful responses. Thanks for taking the time to answer. A few lines from all of you have made me want to elaborate a little bit as to what I mean.

I don't mean more important as in "who do you love more," as no one could or should be expected to answer a question like that. I'm asking more in a "given a non major choice, which side usually gets priority?" It's the little time tallies that most people don't think about.

In my mind, the perfect example of what I'm talking about comes from a movie I had to sit though, the first Sex and the City movie (ah, the things we do for love). The red haired woman has a nuclear family, and it seems to be going all right. Her husband one night sets up a romantic dinner for the evening, which she shows up to late because one of her children's activities went too long. He shrugs it off, and they eat the cold dinner. After he's starting up the foreplay and whatnot, but she brushes him off saying "I have to take <kid> to his soccer practice tomorrow morning, I have to get to sleep now." Husband then makes note this has happened every week for weeks, and he's tired of playing second fiddle.

Now, I know it's just a movie, and situations that overblown rarely happen, but it does make me wonder how based in reality that is. Given the choice of a surprise late lunch with the spouse, or making sure the kids are driven to soccer practice, I can't say in confidence I know anyone that would take the first choice. They'll want to, but they won't do it. It seems to me that 9/10 times when there's a conflict, the kids win out. I dated a girl with 2 young kids for a while (part of my no kids decision now) and I was always left holding the short end of the stick. Routinely canceling our dates, showing up at minimum an hour late to most things, etc. I don't know I could put up with that again, especially if the kids state was after a long no kids stage.

 

[white dove]

These are some really insightful responses. Thanks for taking the time to answer. A few lines from all of you have made me want to elaborate a little bit as to what I mean.

I don't mean more important as in "who do you love more," as no one could or should be expected to answer a question like that. I'm asking more in a "given a non major choice, which side usually gets priority?" It's the little time tallies that most people don't think about.

In my mind, the perfect example of what I'm talking about comes from a movie I had to sit though, the first Sex and the City movie (ah, the things we do for love). The red haired woman has a nuclear family, and it seems to be going all right. Her husband one night sets up a romantic dinner for the evening, which she shows up to late because one of her children's activities went too long. He shrugs it off, and they eat the cold dinner. After he's starting up the foreplay and whatnot, but she brushes him off saying "I have to take <kid> to his soccer practice tomorrow morning, I have to get to sleep now." Husband then makes note this has happened every week for weeks, and he's tired of playing second fiddle.

Now, I know it's just a movie, and situations that overblown rarely happen, but it does make me wonder how based in reality that is. Given the choice of a surprise late lunch with the spouse, or making sure the kids are driven to soccer practice, I can't say in confidence I know anyone that would take the first choice. They'll want to, but they won't do it. It seems to me that 9/10 times when there's a conflict, the kids win out. I dated a girl with 2 young kids for a while (part of my no kids decision now) and I was always left holding the short end of the stick. Routinely canceling our dates, showing up at minimum an hour late to most things, etc. I don't know I could put up with that again, especially if the kids state was after a long no kids stage.

I was thinking this is what you meant. I've seen that movie too (oh, the sins I have committed..) and I know exactly how wrong her response was. He does end up cheating in the film and feeling terrible about it. But, the wife owns up to her responsibility in the marriage as well (not for what the husband did, but for her own part in isolating her own husband and not prioritizing very well). I believe she had gone such-and-such months without sex with her husband (I assume because of their hectic lives and not making time for one another). Again, I'm not married and perhaps my response is all bright-eyed and naive, but I don't think there has to be a choice in such cases. The only choice I see is to make sure you have enough energy and time for both. As a single mom, I know how much energy I need to tackle the day. If I were in a relationship, I would know that the man in my life (other than the little man in my life) needs to feel special, too. I'm glad you had those experiences because clearly, those weren't the right women for you. The right woman will know how to make time for you, while still taking care of her child (if she has one or a couple.. or if you two have them together). I believe it can be done; just sometimes people aren't really good at it.

 

[Mayzoo]

I believe most women and mothers fall into the category I do. The person that falls short on the priority list is me--not one of them. Example:

Our daughter goes to bed early (8pm to 9pm) and gets up early (7am to 8am), so she gets plenty of rest.

Due to my husband's work schedule, he goes to bed late (12am to 2amish) and gets up late.

I go to bed late with hubby and get up early early with daughter so they both have what they need. When hubby is home, I go to bed before him maybe 2-3 times a year.

This is the normal outcome around here and from what I gather, it is normal in most households.

 

[malloriesDad]

I've been asking this question to myself alot here lately. I think when two people become parents they have to expect, to an extent, that the children are going to come first in most cases. Not to say that a husband and wifes relationship has to suffer because that would in turn affect the children.

In my case, my wife and I both put our kids in front of our marriage. We didn't take the time to still be husband and wife and now our marriage is on the verge of divorce. I tried to remain romantic but she did not. I think in our case we had children too early in our marriage. We had not built a strong enough relationship with each other first and now that we have kids our marriage is failing.

Too many times I think marriages fail when children are brought into the picture because the husband and wife haven't developed their relationship to the point to withstand the pressures of having and raising children.

My advice, Children are a blessing, I would not give up my two girls for anything. I don't regret my choices in life, but if I had to do it over again, I would make sure my wife and I were ready to have children. Our marriage just wasn't strong enough.

 

[£amb]

These are some really insightful responses. Thanks for taking the time to answer. A few lines from all of you have made me want to elaborate a little bit as to what I mean.

I don't mean more important as in "who do you love more," as no one could or should be expected to answer a question like that. I'm asking more in a "given a non major choice, which side usually gets priority?" It's the little time tallies that most people don't think about.

In my mind, the perfect example of what I'm talking about comes from a movie I had to sit though, the first Sex and the City movie (ah, the things we do for love). The red haired woman has a nuclear family, and it seems to be going all right. Her husband one night sets up a romantic dinner for the evening, which she shows up to late because one of her children's activities went too long. He shrugs it off, and they eat the cold dinner. After he's starting up the foreplay and whatnot, but she brushes him off saying "I have to take <kid> to his soccer practice tomorrow morning, I have to get to sleep now." Husband then makes note this has happened every week for weeks, and he's tired of playing second fiddle.

Now, I know it's just a movie, and situations that overblown rarely happen, but it does make me wonder how based in reality that is. Given the choice of a surprise late lunch with the spouse, or making sure the kids are driven to soccer practice, I can't say in confidence I know anyone that would take the first choice. They'll want to, but they won't do it. It seems to me that 9/10 times when there's a conflict, the kids win out. I dated a girl with 2 young kids for a while (part of my no kids decision now) and I was always left holding the short end of the stick. Routinely canceling our dates, showing up at minimum an hour late to most things, etc. I don't know I could put up with that again, especially if the kids state was after a long no kids stage.

It is a hard situation. I have 2 teenage boys and been married close to 22 years. We made time for us, but when the kids are young, alot of time is alotted to them and things come up unexpectedly. People who want children need to go into it knowing these things will happen and not be so nauive about it. So much of your time is taken from you and you will feel physically, mentally, spiritually and emotionally tired.

You have given an example of making a choice of a surprise lunch and getting the kids to soccer practice. If you have put the kids in a sport then there is a commitment to meet....the kids participating and you making sure they are there. If you really wanted to make both things happen, then you would have to make arrangements for the child to get to practice. But it doesn't always happen that way, so you would have to plan a surprise lunch on a day where there is no other commitments to be met. That doesn't make it "spontaneous", but it is showing the effort of wanting to be together. Believe me, there are many other things I like to do than take my child to a practice, but since I'm the adult then I need to set the example of being responsible and reliable.

People make the mistake of thinking that it will be like this all the time with children and it's not. Children grow up, and you will see that you have more time to yourself and to your spouse to do things. Especially when they are of age to leave them home and you can go out on a date together.

 

[ChildByGrace]

It is a hard situation. I have 2 teenage boys and been married close to 22 years. We made time for us, but when the kids are young, alot of time is alotted to them and things come up unexpectedly. People who want children need to go into it knowing these things will happen and not be so nauive about it. So much of your time is taken from you and you will feel physically, mentally, spiritually and emotionally tired.

You have given an example of making a choice of a surprise lunch and getting the kids to soccer practice. If you have put the kids in a sport then there is a commitment to meet....the kids participating and you making sure they are there. If you really wanted to make both things happen, then you would have to make arrangements for the child to get to practice. But it doesn't always happen that way, so you would have to plan a surprise lunch on a day where there is no other commitments to be met. That doesn't make it "spontaneous", but it is showing the effort of wanting to be together. Believe me, there are many other things I like to do than take my child to a practice, but since I'm the adult then I need to set the example of being responsible and reliable.

People make the mistake of thinking that it will be like this all the time with children and it's not. Children grow up, and you will see that you have more time to yourself and to your spouse to do things. Especially when they are of age to leave them home and you can go out on a date together.

I think what you said is spot on

 

[Umaro]

It is a hard situation. I have 2 teenage boys and been married close to 22 years. We made time for us, but when the kids are young, alot of time is alotted to them and things come up unexpectedly. People who want children need to go into it knowing these things will happen and not be so nauive about it. So much of your time is taken from you and you will feel physically, mentally, spiritually and emotionally tired.

You have given an example of making a choice of a surprise lunch and getting the kids to soccer practice. If you have put the kids in a sport then there is a commitment to meet....the kids participating and you making sure they are there. If you really wanted to make both things happen, then you would have to make arrangements for the child to get to practice. But it doesn't always happen that way, so you would have to plan a surprise lunch on a day where there is no other commitments to be met. That doesn't make it "spontaneous", but it is showing the effort of wanting to be together. Believe me, there are many other things I like to do than take my child to a practice, but since I'm the adult then I need to set the example of being responsible and reliable.

I can see what you mean, but I guess it's just something I'm unwilling to deal with. You can say it's my fault for putting them into a sport, but there's also school, play dates, doctors appointments, etc, that all have to be dealt with. I'm fairly positive it shakes out that there are more "for the kids" commitments than "for the spouse" ones just out of necessity. Even if you squeeze in those times together, I just don't think I could handle it. It doesn't seem worth it to me, and I'm really struggling to see why everyone else seems to think it is enough to the point that they tell me I'm wrong for not wanting my life that way. I want my wife and I to be free to live our lives together with as little as possible in the way. I just can't relate to this lifestyle...

People make the mistake of thinking that it will be like this all the time with children and it's not. Children grow up, and you will see that you have more time to yourself and to your spouse to do things. Especially when they are of age to leave them home and you can go out on a date together.

I don't think I could tolerate "oh, it's only for 10 years or so, then you can go back to enjoying time with your wife." Why not just skip the kids and keep that time to myself my entire life?

 

[£amb]

I can see what you mean, but I guess it's just something I'm unwilling to deal with. You can say it's my fault for putting them into a sport, but there's also school, play dates, doctors appointments, etc, that all have to be dealt with. I'm fairly positive it shakes out that there are more "for the kids" commitments than "for the spouse" ones just out of necessity. Even if you squeeze in those times together, I just don't think I could handle it. It doesn't seem worth it to me, and I'm really struggling to see why everyone else seems to think it is enough to the point that they tell me I'm wrong for not wanting my life that way. I want my wife and I to be free to live our lives together with as little as possible in the way. I just can't relate to this lifestyle...




I don't think I could tolerate "oh, it's only for 10 years or so, then you can go back to enjoying time with your wife." Why not just skip the kids and keep that time to myself my entire life?

It's a choice. Your choice is perfectly fine and it suits what you want in life. People shouldn't condemn people who want a child-free lifestyle and vice versa. Not everyone is cut out to be parents....even the ones who have children. May you and your future wife (unless you're already married) have an enjoyable life together!!

 

[heart of peace]

The original question comes off as a loaded one to me. In a family, there are no either/ors but both/ands. In other words, it's not EITHER the relationship with the spouse OR the child, but the relationship with BOTH the spouse AND the child that is important. I disagree with a child centered family or an adult centered family. To me, it's about the health of all people in the family together that is most important.

 

[katautumn]

It seems to me that when a couple has children, they are each substantially more attached to the children than they are to each other. This is one of the reasons that I don't ever want kids. Is that really how it is? Who are you closer to? If you had to pick one over the other, which side would it fall on? Or any other viewpoints you care to share.

Intimately, I'm closer to my husband. With that said, my son's needs oftentimes supersede my husband's. Why? Because a child's needs are immediate. Because children are selfish. Because my husband is self-sufficient and my son is not at his age. Some men are very understanding that when a woman has a child to take care of, he sometimes takes a back seat. Other men are insanely jealous of the time children take away from them. I once read a story of a man who was actually jealous, because his wife chose to breastfeed their infant. He whined about how her breasts were off-limits to him, but the baby was given constant access to them. That seemed like a rather strange way to feel about things.

Here is how things work in my marriage:

My son wants something expensive < my husband says we can't afford it at the time.

My son falls and needs a band-aid > my husband wants a snack.

My son wants me to play with him < my husband needs to talk about something of great importance with me.

My son is sick in the night and cries > my husband not wanting his sleep disturbed.

There must be balance. There are times in which my son's needs will override my husband's wants. And while, biblically, the order of things is God>Husband>Child, my son was around before I met my husband, so we will always have a very special and unique bond. My son is not my husband's son, although my husband is more of a father to him than my son's biological father. And I never, ever correct my husband in front of my son. If my husband says or does something I feel is out of line, in terms of how he interacts with my son, I wait until my son is out of the room to address this.

One of those areas is discipline. I do not spank my son, especially at the age he's at now. My husband was raised in a home where not only were you beaten with the hickory switch, but you had to endure to punishment of picking one out yourself, taking great care to not get one too small. So we have differing views on punishment and discipline. I don't spank, because my son has high-functioning Autism, and physical discipline usually only serves to make the child progress deeper into meltdown mode. Autism was something completely foreign to my husband, who took my son's moods and behaviors as insolence, and thus figured I was simply spoiling him and letting him get away with everything. Fortunately, I married a super loving guy who was more than willing to research Autism and learn about hypersensitivity and how to deal with it in ways other than lashing out physically or raising his voice.

 

[Umaro]

The original question comes off as a loaded one to me. In a family, there are no either/ors but both/ands. In other words, it's not EITHER the relationship with the spouse OR the child, but the relationship with BOTH the spouse AND the child that is important. I disagree with a child centered family or an adult centered family. To me, it's about the health of all people in the family together that is most important.

Well yes, there's always a balancing act going on, but i real life, nobody can do it perfectly. I'm not saying it's intentional or anything, but one side or the other tends to get the short end of the stick more often.

Intimately, I'm closer to my husband. With that said, my son's needs oftentimes supersede my husband's. Why? Because a child's needs are immediate. Because children are selfish. Because my husband is self-sufficient and my son is not at his age. Some men are very understanding that when a woman has a child to take care of, he sometimes takes a back seat. Other men are insanely jealous of the time children take away from them. I once read a story of a man who was actually jealous, because his wife chose to breastfeed their infant. He whined about how her breasts were off-limits to him, but the baby was given constant access to them. That seemed like a rather strange way to feel about things.

Here is how things work in my marriage:

My son wants something expensive < my husband says we can't afford it at the time.

My son falls and needs a band-aid > my husband wants a snack.

My son wants me to play with him < my husband needs to talk about something of great importance with me.

My son is sick in the night and cries > my husband not wanting his sleep disturbed.

All those things are very obvious choices though. I'm talking about times when it really could go either way. If you son wants you to drive him to soccer practice or a friends house, and your husband wants to take you out to dinner at the same time, which would you pick more often? From what I see on the outside, and with people I've known, more often than not the child wins out in a neutral choice.

 

[ChildByGrace]

Well yes, there's always a balancing act going on, but i real life, nobody can do it perfectly. I'm not saying it's intentional or anything, but one side or the other tends to get the short end of the stick more often.



All those things are very obvious choices though. I'm talking about times when it really could go either way. If you son wants you to drive him to soccer practice or a friends house, and your husband wants to take you out to dinner at the same time, which would you pick more often? From what I see on the outside, and with people I've known, more often than not the child wins out in a neutral choice.

To me that's not really a choice. As parents my husband and I have agreed to sent our son to swimming lessons. We have to pay for this in advance and we are given a list of dates and times (at the moment 1.30-2pm) when he has to attend. We have made a commitment to this therefore my husband and I can't just decide 'hey lets go out to lunch at 1.30 on thursday' it's not because our son is more important than each other. It's that we've made a commitment to taking him swimming.

 

[Umaro]

To me that's not really a choice. As parents my husband and I have agreed to sent our son to swimming lessons. We have to pay for this in advance and we are given a list of dates and times (at the moment 1.30-2pm) when he has to attend. We have made a commitment to this therefore my husband and I can't just decide 'hey lets go out to lunch at 1.30 on thursday' it's not because our son is more important than each other. It's that we've made a commitment to taking him swimming.

Alright, we can look at a more neutral choice then. One of my friends had this the other day. He wanted to take his wife and go see Black Swan, the kid wanted to see some kids movie. They don't have the money to go out that often, and he ended up seeing some kids movie I'm sure neither parent really was interested in.

 

[FaithPrevails]

It seems to me that when a couple has children, they are each substantially more attached to the children than they are to each other. This is one of the reasons that I don't ever want kids. Is that really how it is? Who are you closer to? If you had to pick one over the other, which side would it fall on? Or any other viewpoints you care to share.

My children are an extension of me. The love I have for them is different (not greater or lesser, mind you) than the love I have for my husband.

The issue that you are observing, IMO, is that kids do demand a lot of time/attention - especially when they are younger. Couples have to work at making sure they carve out time for making one another a priority in the midst of the demands of keeping up with young children.

As children get older, time becomes a more available/less precious commodity and couples find it easier to devote more time to one another again.

That time spent together helps maintain/deepen a bond that a couple has (and, likewise, that the couple has with their children when their children are young). This is why it's important to make the time to make each other a priority when kids are young - so the couple's bond doesn't suffer. The failure to do so is what contributes to "empty nest syndrome" and divorces once children are grown and gone, IMO. My parents never suffered empty nest syndrome b/c they spent quality time together as we were growing up.

 

[FaithPrevails]

You have given an example of making a choice of a surprise lunch and getting the kids to soccer practice. If you have put the kids in a sport then there is a commitment to meet....the kids participating and you making sure they are there. If you really wanted to make both things happen, then you would have to make arrangements for the child to get to practice. But it doesn't always happen that way, so you would have to plan a surprise lunch on a day where there is no other commitments to be met. That doesn't make it "spontaneous", but it is showing the effort of wanting to be together. Believe me, there are many other things I like to do than take my child to a practice, but since I'm the adult then I need to set the example of being responsible and reliable.

Well said.