An article about marriage and divorce

There has been so much going on lately, and I am so far behind in the narrative here, that I hardly know how I could catch up. But here is a fairly self-contained discussion.

In the middle of letters about other things, I happened to mention to D one day:

I have been trying to think clearly too, and it's not easy. Today's Time Magazine has an article reminding me of the colossal cost of divorce on the children of a marriage -- any children of any marriage, controlling for all other variables. So why would I think about it? Because Wife has become frankly so awful, in all the dimensions that you identify. But is she so awful that the damage caused by staying with her is greater than the damage caused by tearing the household apart, however flawed it be? Show me the calipers by which I can measure those things, and I can then answer the question. Until then, I have no idea.

I guess I haven't mentioned in so many words that the idea had crossed my mind, but after my last eight posts -- basically everything in July -- it shouldn't be a real stretch to figure out. Anyway, it's at least a topic of discussion and some research. But I want to weigh all the factors, and the article in Time certainly raised some points that I couldn't ignore.

D went out to pick up the magazine and read the article, and then she replied as follows:

I read the TIME article on marriage with increasing dismay the longer I read the article. Since when does TIME print hysterical and nasty articles as thoughtful commentary? I admit she lost me when quoting Leonard Michaels: "Adultery is not about sex or romance. Ultimately, it is about how little we mean to each other." Really? Does this strike you as a true comment on our love or our agonized discussions about our marriages? I respectfully, but firmly, demur.

There is a sharp edge and tone to this article that slashes, but the understanding seems superficial. Is the collapse of marriage really the single most important force causing hardship and misery in America? How is Flanagan measuring these factors? Yes, children who are poor often have no fathers living at home, but that's not the whole story. Let's drop the pretense and address the real issue; Flanagan doesn't mention the African American birthrate outside of marriage (so politically incorrect!), but it's about 70%. Does she really want to say that 70% of a certain ethnic group is living in misery and hardship because the children are not born within marriage? This seems to discount the efforts of female parents - single parents - as fine as any I've ever known. It also dismisses the influence of grandparents and pastors who direct and guide so many African Americans. Perhaps she ought to look at our president before making such sweeping generalizations. I'm in the trenches; I know how difficult poverty is, but single parenting is only one of many factors that limit the success of my students. Interestingly, Dad usually isn't far. He may be behind in child support, and that's unfortunate, but every state in America has separated visitation from child support, understanding that seeing Dad is more important to the child than the regular check, particularly in the Black community, where women have a far easier time getting a job than the 'threatening' male. Sigh* This issue is just so complex. Articles like this one don't help clarify the issues.

Two of the authors Flanagan quotes I have read extensively. David Blankenhorn is an evangelical Christian who has made a career out of promoting traditional fatherhood. That means a hard line against gay and lesbian parents and a view of fatherhood that seems rather idealized. The quote Flanagan uses is typical of his evocative language, but there's not the slightest attempt to back it up with evidence. Judith Wallerstein's work is far more interesting. She has done the only longitudinal study of divorce we have, and the results are sobering. Divorce does appear to deeply affect children for years afterward, but even then, you have to realize that the population she is looking at knows they are going to be interviewed about the impact of their parent's divorce for years to come; it is impossible to know how that awareness affects their view of divorce. The population she studies is also reasonably well off and white. Race and class matter. Again, the complexity of this issue is daunting; why such a screed?

Are middle class people who get divorced really the selfish creatures Flanagan portrays? Are we really unwilling to put in the hard work and personal sacrifice necessary to make marriage work? Who does this describe except the cardboard political figures she so gleefully mocks? All the couples I worked with found divorce enormously difficult and painful. They cared deeply about their children, and realized that no extra-martial affair offered the security and rewards of a strong and loving marriage. The idea that people are somehow more narcissistic today than yesterday, fifty years or hundreds of years ago...is suspect. Yes, we get more divorces today. But the average marriage lasts about as long as it did one hundred years ago. Back then, it just ended through death instead of divorce. That wasn't an improvement.

I'm sorry Flanagan's cancer treatment confined her to bed watching reality TV, but perhaps now that she is well, she needs to have more compassion and less judgment for the millions of individuals who face divorce. Ultimately, Tolstoy is still right; each unhappy family is unique. That means the decision to divorce is rarely black and white and neither is it usually selfish or just done for sex and romantic letters. Society has managed to survive even when marriage was not allowed, as in the African slave communities. Humility and kindness might convince me that she understood her subject. Good grief.

OK, that wasn't quite the response I had anticipated, but she raised good points. In reply I wrote her as follows:

I'm not sure what to say about the TIME article. Or rather, there are bits and bobs that I can say, but they don't add up to a coherent picture.

In the first place, I should point out that I didn't give the article a lot of detailed contemplation when I read it. I was still trying to recover from all the emotional hubbub of the week, and this just added to the noise. That's the context in which I mentioned it to you. I can also add that TIME does not always insist that its commentary be measured or thoughtful: I have seen an explicit statement that the editorial policy is both to inform and to entertain (actually "to titillate" but it was written in the 1920's) ... and every so often they print something totally off the wall in the hopes that it will capture people's interest.

I had never heard of Leonard Michaels before this, so I looked him up in Wikipedia. Turns out he is a (recently deceased) author and lit professor. From what I found about him on-line, the quote about adultery (that "it is about how little we mean to each other") seems completely in character. That may, in fact, be what adultery really did mean for him. But it should be no surprise if we have to add, "Your mileage may vary." (Check out, e.g., this article.)

The question of single parenthood is a vexed one; there may be inadequate empirical data, but I almost wonder what kind of data could be adequate. At a purely intuitive and totally unscientific level, it makes a kind of emotional sense to me that the physical presence of fathers should be important and that having a father who lives around-the-corner-and-down-the-street (and who drops in a lot) just wouldn't be the same. But I don't begin to pretend that proves anything. David Blankenhorn may push an overly idealized vision of fatherhood, but the point that Flanagan quotes him to make is a pretty modest one: namely (as I read it) that the emotional bond between parents (both parents!) and children is way more important than any amount of cash. To me, this only echoes the very same concerns you express when you describe how damaging it is to children to listen to denigration of either parent by the other.

As for whether "we" in the middle classes are just too selfish to hang in there, ... well, what can I say? Certainly I tried to hang in there a very long time. (How long has Flanagan been married, come to that? Not that I'm competitive, or anything ....) But there is a point where one feels pushed against the wall. Yes, it is true that there were fewer divorces in former times, but the explanation that marriages simply ended in death doesn't seem fully adequate to me. We have (after all) no evidence what would have happened had the spouses lived longer. What's more, I think there are other factors. In particular, there were times and places where survival outside of a stable marriage was so tenuous that couples had to stay together just to stay alive. Generally, I think this meant that the wife had to stay with the husband no matter how badly she was treated, and no matter how many "dalliances" the husband enjoyed on the side ... because without him she had no means to buy groceries, and no roof over her head while she ate them. Is this a world we want to return to? Where wives are totally dependent on their husbands for everything, and so marriages can remain permanent because husbands have no motive to leave them and wives have no power to? Personally, if I had the power (like Rochester in Jane Eyre) to lock Wife in the attic -- or, more genteelly, to hire servants that would do all her work and prevent her from causing any damage -- I should be less interested in knowing where my rights are in the case of divorce. As long as I could do what I wanted anyway, why would I want a divorce?

But there is no way we are going to return to that world. And I have to believe that people in the past were just as rotten as we are today. If there is a difference in outcome, it must be that the circumstances are different -- in this case, that we have decided widows and divorcees (especially with minor children) shouldn't be left to starve in the streets. So we have changed the laws, and that has made it easier to divorce. No surprise, then, when the numbers go up.

A lot to think about ....

"The Little Foxes"

We watched "The Little Foxes" tonight. Wife subscribed us to Netflix over a year ago -- well over, come to think of it -- and it has been really fun. Well I have no idea when or why she put this one on the list, but it was a great choice.

It was a great choice because it echoes so well the accusations D made about what Wife has become, when D was here last week. Wife's family grew up poor and not rich; but otherwise they bear an astonishing similarity to the Hubbards. I can imagine that Wife herself was Alexandra, back when she was young. Now she is certainly Regina. Wife's older sister is Birdie ... well, she doesn't drink (for religious reasons) but otherwise she is every bit as weak and pliable.

At one point I remarked out loud what a perfect movie it was, thinking of the fights with D and the accusations of just how totally materialistic Wife has become. (I didn't say that part out loud.) It was towards the end of the movie, and Wife asked me (a little bitterly) whether I identify with Horace. Fortunately I was able to evade the question by laughing, "Well Horace is dead, so I sure hope not!" But do I? In reality? Well of course ....

Wife and I actually talked a little after the movie about my request in Counselor's office that she be willing to change, but I don't think we got anywhere. No matter. I have an appointment soon to figure out what my legal rights and obligations are.

It's late, so I'll stop here. But it is really amazing how easy it is to map Wife's extended family onto this movie.

Good night, all.

I may go private soon

I'll be trying to get advice on a number of issues in the next few days, and it is possible that I may be advised to go private. (Not that I expect to be posting a whole lot anyway, if the immediate future is anything like as busy as the immediate past has been.) Nobody has said anything yet, but I want to be prepared.

Needless to say, if the advice I get consistently says "Who cares?" then I won't bother going private.

But -- just in case I do -- please let me know if you want an invitation. An e-mail is fine, or else a comment on this post.

Counseling 32

Well, that was fast.

You have noticed before now that I am pretty cynical these days about the chances for our counseling sessions leading anywhere ... not because I am not willing to put in any commitment (as some readers have suggested or wondered) but because Wife isn't. After plenty of years in which she has openly scoffed at every exercise, proposal, or suggestion that Counselor makes, I figure the odds are against any change ever happening. Back before she left, D asked me, "So why do you still go? Isn't the whole point of marriage counseling that you be willing to make a change in your life? If Wife is absolutely unwilling to change, doesn't that mean that the whole exercise is a waste of time and money?" And the answer, reluctant as I have been to admit it, is really "Yes."

So enough is enough. We get to Counselor's office, he invites us in, we comment briefly on the weather ... and then I start right at the beginning by saying I have a "procedural question" for Wife. I start by explaining all the stuff above about the whole point of marriage counseling; I add in the part about her systematically refusing to budge whenever Counselor has offered us a way to reframe our situation so that we can make progress. And then I ask Wife point blank:

"Are you willing to change?"

"Well," she hedged, "a lot of the specific things we've discussed in the last week where you have asked me to change are things that I have no idea how to change; they may not even be possible ...."

"That's an evasion. I didn't ask about understanding or possibility. Are you willing to change?" My point is that I am not even asking her to succeed -- for that, questions like whether it is possible become relevant. All I want to know is where her heart is ... where her will is ... what direction is she pointing in ...?

"That really depends. Some things I might be willing to discuss changing, but other things I'm not ...."

I stand up and walk to the door. "Then this is a waste of time and I have work to do. Counselor, send me the bill and I'll process it through our insurance." (He usually only gets around to billing us once or twice a year.)

"Wait, I really don't think you can just leave like that ...."

"Bye." And I leave the office and drive back to work.

One minor complication, just to make it a complete story. I have been exchanging e-mails with D over the situation, and she reminded me of something that has concerned me in the past. From time to time, Wife has talked to Boyfriend 5 about kidnapping the children and fleeing to the Old Country. [I looked for references in earlier posts but couldn't find any. This is probably the closest.] Now I know Wife hasn't been in touch with Boyfriend 5 lately (or I think she hasn't) ... but I still worry about the risk that she'll grab-and-go. Flight is, after all, a big deal in her psyche. D brought up the same issue. So when Wife pulled into the parking lot at Counselor's office with Son 1 in the passenger's seat, I asked him to move into my car. The fact is that I have a job in town, so I'm not going anywhere. But I don't want to make it easy or possible for her to do so.

The narrative is starting to accelerate quickly.

P.S. added August 26. I just realized something. This post, our last counseling session together, is dated July 9, 2009. Our first session in this round of counseling was just exactly a year ago, July 10, 2008. Wow.

What is Wife trying to do?

OK, this one is short and sweet. It's a question.

Tonight after everyone else was in bed, I noticed in Wife's purse a lumpy sealed envelope. Under the circumstances, I figured that self-preservation trumps respect for privacy, so I opened it. It contained her birth certificate and her passport. I have mentioned that she already has her driver's license.

What does this add up to? In other words, what is the transaction for which she would need these particular pieces of paper? Is she going to the bank to get her other ATMs back? Or is it something a lot more dangerous? For that matter, why is she in such a blasted hurry to get those things back, when I have tried to say that the more she nags me about them, the more nervous I get and the longer I'll hide them? Is it just that she can't stand being out of control? Or is she planning to do me some kind of harm once she gets them?

Inquiring minds want to know ....

There was also a letter to Friend, but I didn't bother opening that. I can probably guess that it is about how awful I am, and about why she hasn't been around her cell phone lately. I hope it is nothing actually threatening.

Thoughts?

Sixth date 4, Brief narrative

Let's see if I can give a bare bones account of what actually happened last week. Let's see ... chronologically? Thematically? A mix ...?

Revisiting the week as I wrote this, I think it is pretty likely I won't have any friends left in the blogosphere by the time they finish reading it. (sigh) I hope it helps that I am aware of the problem. I am trying to figure out the next steps from here.

Cleaning

[Saturday] D started by helping the boys tidy their room and put away their laundry. Only they couldn't close their dresser drawers because of the huge numbers of shirts falling out of them. Wife says "If they'd only hang up their shirts it would be no problem." D asks the boys, "What are these shirts? Can you show me? Do they still fit? Do you like them or wear them?" Then she weeded out a couple of bags worth of shirts that no longer fit and/or that neither boy was willing to let touch his body. And suddenly the dresser drawers closed nicely.

[Sunday, Monday] D and I totally rearranged the storage units. Wife and I have rented a storage unit ever since we moved into our house. You may recall that back in January we had to rent a second unit because of all the junk we moved out of the house. Well, two units cost twice as much as one unit (fancy that!) and the expense was getting to be a nuisance. D and I rearranged things so that we could consolidate into one unit, and surrender the second one. And mostly we succeeded at this by simple geometry ... we really threw out very little. (Well, ... considering.)

Also, D cleaned the bathrooms again. Yes, she had done that back in January. It is possible somebody else might have done it since then, but I'm not taking bets.

[Tuesday, Wednesday] Then she started in on the living room, which had been left out the last time around. The boys had left a bunch of junk lying around, and there were books strewn. Also the room was hard to use (and therefore drifted into being a junk depository) because of the way the bookshelves and furniture were arranged. OK, well D got the boys to pick up their own stuff. She consulted a bit and we agreed that the brick-and-board shelf had to come down ... that would improve the space enormously. (I would swear that Wife was in on this agreement, but maybe she thought we were talking about something else.) So D went to work on the shelves, pulling down books to dust them and asking what could get donated to charity or the library or something. As the project went on, she got significantly more aggressive on this point; and in the end we must have culled somewhere over a thousand books. Not that this really stripped our living room, you understand ... there must be twice that many still on the shelves. Or more.

[Thursday] Last thing was to organize a whole box of filing into which I had been pitching papers pell-mell for a long, long time. She did ask me (several times) if I had any intention of ever dealing with the papers, and was tolerant when I said yes.

Other chores

D did a lot of laundry -- every day -- and did the dishes after every meal. (She doesn't believe in dishwashers.) She also offered to help Son 2 pack for a big two-week expedition he was leaving for -- call it a campout, which is close enough. She helped me plan, shop for, and cook the meals. She made a huge raft of sandwiches for Son 1's sports team, which had a number of games during the week. There's probably more that I'm forgetting.

Sex

Since D was staying in our house, there wasn't really a good venue for sex. But we improvised the best we could, using what little standing room we could find in the storage units and the garage. I can't say either of those venues worked for me terribly well, but they did seem to work for D -- rapturously and repeatedly. At any rate she certainly sounded like she was enjoying herself ... and the loss of muscular control is something I'd only ever read about before. I take all that as a good sign. (Seriously, it could sound like I'm griping and I'm not; given the very tight constraints, I think the sex was one of the things that worked out best during the whole week.)

Fights

There were a lot of them.

Wife blamed D for throwing away all those shirts; although honestly I had wanted to do the same thing for years. Wife buys stuff without any visible regard for whether we need it or already have it; I have enough shirts to go to work for three weeks without repeating a single one, but she still tells me I need a few more. The thing is that I'm too dilatory or slothful to get around to purging the boys's shirts, to say nothing of wanting to avoid the inevitable fight that it would (and did) generate. But when there were so many shirts that they would never wear, it was the right thing to do.

D for her part got progressively more irritated at Wife's refusal to say Please or Thank you or even Hello, at Wife's seeming inability even to notice when D was scrubbing her fingers to the bone cleaning caked shit out of the inside rims of our toilets, and at Wife's consistent failure to make even the smallest gesture of politeness: Can I get you something? Would you like a glass of water? One way of explaining this neglect would be to say that Wife didn't want D to do the things she was doing, but it is pretty hard to think that about scrubbing the toilets. Nor does it explain similar rudenesses over breakfast or dinner, when no work was being done at all (except for cooking or washing up). In any event, when Wife shouted about some of the other topics, D shot back with this one.

Wife resented the hell out of our pruning the books, and truth to tell we probably went overboard. But the way she reacted wasn't very productive, because it mostly meant repeating the refrain, "You can't throw those away because their mine, mine, mine, all mine! Do you hear me? Mine, mine, MINE!" This just cemented D's diagnosis that owning all this stuff has totally distorted Wife's view of the world, making it all about her. Since Wife acquires the stuff with no concern for whether we will need it or ever use it, the overall pattern looks unhealthy. And no, D was not terribly gentle about explaining this back to Wife; rather, when Wife had screeched for long enough at D, D would shout back at her to open her eyes up to other people besides herself. The point about basic civility (see the preceding paragraph) fit in here too.

Occasionally Wife would argue that she needed these or those scholarly tomes because she still reads them on a regular basis and is going to go back to scholarship any day now. Mind you, she failed her master's exams nearly fifteen years ago and hasn't seen the inside of a university since then. The "scholarly tomes" in question were all covered in spider webs and insect droppings, so they probably hadn't been used all that recently. But Wife claimed that they had been and would be, all the same. This argument just contributed to the impression both D and I have, that Wife spends most of her time in a world of make-believe.

Wife was also angry that D offered to help Son 2 pack for his expedition. What was she trying to say, that Wife wasn't good enough to pack her own son? (Somehow the topic had shifted from getting the work done to whether Wife was good enough ... but don't conclude that this is self-absorption.) Now, Son 2 is a gentler and more sensitive kid than Son 1, and I really didn't want him being caught between two such dominant women. So I pushed both of them away (figuratively) and insisted that Son 2 should pack himself. After all, if he's going to be gone for two weeks, he'll have to be able to take care of that. This seemed to work out OK.

Shortly after we finished with the books, Wife went out to get "one last thing" that Son 2 would need for his trip. She came back not having found it, but having bought a big box of candles (we have candles already, not that we use them), some personal electronics (for which we have no need), and a pair of $60 earrings (she must have hundreds of earrings). I lost my temper at this and took the bags away from her. I went immediately back to the store to return them. In the process, I also took Wife's wallet and hid it somewhere I am reasonably sure she can't retrieve it. (I can, easily enough.)

That's how I confiscated Wife's wallet.

While I am still speaking of the wallet, I should explain a couple of things. I let her keep her driver's license and all her keys. She recently set up an ATM card with our bank that lets her access two separate accounts holding inheritance money from a relative that recently died. These accounts are in her name alone, so I have no ownership rights on them. And I let her keep that ATM card. (Between them they add to something over $23,000.00 ... so as long as she is willing to drive to the bank, she has access to plenty of money.) I also let her keep her insurance ID cards and her library card. So she is not without resources. But I hope to impede her ability mindlessly to piss away our common resources as long as she is making such irrational buying decisions.

While I was gone, she spent the time murmuring softly to Son 2 about what a beast I am and how she won't put up with it any longer, until he was curled up on his bed crying in fetal position. (Nice send-off for his big trip, huh?) When I came back and found out, I told her "No more. You are going to be happy and cheerful until Son 2 leaves tomorrow evening. I don't care what anybody does to you or says to you, but you are not going to say a single, solitary unpleasant thing until that time. Then after he leaves, you can say anything you want." She couldn't make herself be pleasant, but she did succeed in shutting up, which I guess is the next best thing.

She also got on the phone to Boyfriend 5 ... or no, I guess it was Friend. That's when I picked up her cell phone, insisting that she deal with the here-and-now instead of fleeing into fantasy land. I handed the phone to D, saying I was really too upset to know what to do with it. D put it somewhere around the house. I'm sure it will turn up.

That's what happened to the cell phone.

Travel and heat

The next day we took Son 2 to the spot where he was embarking on his big trip. Everyone said nice things to him, and we all hurrahed him off. (Wife sulked when she wasn't actually talking to him, but never mind.) Then we went from there to visit my parents and spent the night. The next morning we hung out at my parents' house for a while, preparing a big barbecue for lunch. D spent a lot of time chatting with them and getting to know them.

After I took a shower that morning, I couldn't find my comb so I checked in Wife's bag for one. I didn't find a comb, but I did find her Smith & Wesson 38. Now, I don't know about you but I honestly can't think of any legitimate reason for her to have brought a handgun along on this trip. So I lifted it out of the bag and hid it at my parents' house. I also told my parents -- and D -- what I had found.

Not ten minutes later, Wife asked me in a long-suffering voice to give her back her handgun. I asked her why she had brought it. Her answer was, "I always carry it whenever I go anywhere, so that it can't get stolen by someone breaking into the house."

This is a pure lie -- a total fabrication -- and I told her so. I know perfectly well that on plenty of other occasions when we spent the night at my parents' house, she did not pack a weapon. So what was she planning? Was she going to kill us all? Or make a dramatic last stand and then kill herself? Both? Or what? My private theory is that she didn't have a plan, and in fact that she didn't even know why she packed it. But that doesn't make me feel any better.

Anyway, that's how I confiscated the handgun.

Coda

Later in the week we went to one of Son 1's sports events, went out to see a silly summer movie, got pizza and ice cream ... fun stuff. I read aloud a funny essay I had found. And Monday morning I took D to the rental car office, from which she was going to drive herself a few hours away to visit some relatives. First stop, of course, was her adult daughter, whose comments on the week you have already read here.

This will have to do for now ... it's more than I really had time to write, but no matter. I want to add another post or two that spend more time thinking about what happened, not just narrating it. But that's for another day.

Sixth date 3, Letter from D

I realize it is kind of silly to keep posting letters that reflect on the week when I haven't told you anything about the week itself yet. But I really am not planning this out very clearly or well. As a result, when something drops into my hands that is relevant, I am going to post it before it gets away from me. Over while, I hope a mosaic picture will emerge.

D left this morning to visit other relatives, including her adult daughter. This evening she sent me the following e-mail:

Dearest Hosea,

I told [my adult daughter] something about our relationship and the week. She is very disappointed at my behavior and believes that I should end the relationship with you until we both are clearer about our respective marriages. I knew I risked receiving a message that would be very difficult to hear, but I'm also confused enough to ask for help.... I respect her clear-eyed view, and thus I am feeling considerably subdued and thoughtful.

Let's see if I can organize this material into some sort of pattern. I'll start with [Wife], move to you and finish with me.... Never doubt my love for you; but let's reconsider everything else.

There is no question that [Wife] is right on almost all the basics. I did take over tasks that were no business of mine and I did get rid of huge amounts of stuff that frankly was not mine to make decisions about. I did insult and shout at her. I took your side and made her life more and more difficult as the week went on. I'm not justifying her packing a gun, but she was certainly right on some emotional level to think that together, we threatened almost everything in her life. We did; we do.

That said, [Wife] is not stable. This is not new, but you are right to think that her complex mental and physical health problems have worsened greatly in the last two years. She is miserable herself, and toxic to others, and she has almost no ability to change or even any desire to try. [Wife] has no belief in anything or anyone; her faith life is as false as her regard for her family and friends. She is lost in a dozen ways. This confusion and self-centered outlook also makes her dangerous.... I am afraid she is capable of doing something unforgivable and tragic.

The house and all the mess, all the useless and ugly things [Wife] has bought and acquired over the years have been purchased and preserved with your agreement, however reluctant and passive ... to preserve elements of peace and to provide some stability for your beloved boys. Your decision to do so is almost certainly a mistake; it has brought her closer to moral and intellectual ruin, and you are increasingly isolated and unhappy.... [Another e-mail friend] is absolutely right to say you have had almost no power in your personal life. Your reactions, passive-aggressive at times, and angry in other situations have not helped to shift the power balance. The situation is critical now because it so obviously impacts the children. I would like to think that your willingness to join the blogging community and later, your relationship with me, are signs that you have decided to turn to others for understanding and support.

After this week, it is clear that your clinical depression is something I have to factor in every matter involving you. It is quite serious, and affects you deeply. You can be fine; charming, intellectually stimulating, and in charge, and then turn on a dime...become timid, paralyzed by the smallest decision, exhausted, passive and deeply unhappy.... Sometimes you check out entirely, but most of the time when you are depressed, I believe you are truly confused and saddened by events that have spun out of control....

My behavior...is probably inexcusable on many levels. First, I am certainly not helping either you or [Wife] deal with each other or make wise decisions about your marriage. I can no longer pretend to be neutral; after our sexual relationship began, I am not able to mediate effectively, even if I was able to do so in the past. Second, I am not being fair to the members of your family and my family by having an affair with you. If [my husband or my other children] found out, they would be deeply hurt and shocked. If [your children] discovered our love for one another, they would feel as though you had betrayed their mother. We cannot avoid the consequences of our behavior...and I am deeply afraid that we will be found out, sooner or later.

I have not filed for divorce; perhaps I have felt as though the status quo is acceptable because I am afraid you will never leave your wife and I don't want to live by myself. You have not filed for divorce because of your love and hope for [Wife], your passivity and diffidence which is part of depression, and because it is most unclear how she would survive if you left. Neither of us have decided definitively what to do about our marriages, and [my adult daughter] may be right to say our marriages must be resolved, one way or another before we can truly commit to one another and talk about forging a life together. Right now, she feels I am acting immorally and perhaps setting you and the boys up for disaster. If [Wife] finds out, will she react passively? Or will she feel so betrayed by both of us that only violence will suffice? My worst nightmare is not losing the respect and love of my family, but being responsible for harm done to you or the boys.

It is clear that I cannot be a friend to both you and [Wife]; even if you decide to end our relationship, I cannot continue to befriend [Wife]. Frankly, I don't admire and respect her any longer. Her denigration of you is intolerable on so many levels; I simply don't want to listen to her lies and bitterness and excuses any longer. Her materialism, her selfishness and her unkindness make her the last person I would ever think of as a confidant and friend. I am deeply sorry; I have so many wonderful memories of her. But the person in your home today is a shadow of the woman I once loved. I will not return to [your city].

But you...I love you beyond measure. I have considered leaving you...but I can't, not now, not without both of us sitting together, talking to each other and considering what is to be done. I love you far too much to simply walk away and wish you well. I do have terrible fears about hurting those I have loved so long and well, but I also love you with a deep and abiding love that remains, even when I know what I am doing is wrong and potentially extremely harmful. But to cut you from my heart, my mind, myself...not yet, not without more thought and prayer and discussion.

Take care, my darling. Be well.

.