2 month separation from your DH, would you freak out?

[sweetbasil]

I realize I'm late to this thread (and haven't read all the commentary), but freak out? I'd only freak out if he was heading to a war zone or another life-threatening situation.

 

I love my husband dearly. He's my best friend in the whole world and we never get tired of spending time together. He also works from home so we probably see each other more than most spouses.

 

That said, I can and do manage the household just fine on my own. He works very long hours and most of it falls to me.

 

Would I miss him? Of course! Would we talk as much as possible? Of course! Would I be an emotional mess? No, not at all.

[Murphy101]

As for knowing about their careers prior to marriage - we were both in high school when we fell in love. He was a senior, I was a junior - not exactly too sure about career choices at that point.... So - you're saying as soon as he decided to go into the military I should have said, "Oh - never mind"?

 

I met my dh when we were 16, married at 19. Sure we weren't too sure about career choices, but we were in agreement that careers that involved long separations were off the table for both of us. And yes, if prior to marriage he had decided he wanted to join the military, I would have decided that maybe we were not well matched and not married him. He would have done the same if I had decided I wanted to enlist.

 

:iagree: to an extent. There are those that really should not homeschool. There are those that really should not be a military or trucker's wife. Some people are simply NOT cut out for it. I'd rather see someone honest about it than see a marriage fall apart over it.

 

:iagree: I don't think it is a question of lesser marriages. It's about different marriages.

 

It's the, "I could nevers," that I have a hard time with, and I too left the thread feeling defensive, and that somehow my marriage was less because we can & do survive time apart. I hate when he's away. My heart hurts (and I can't sleep). But it just isn't a deal breaker. I get that marriages are different, but time apart being a deal breaker? I guess I just can't fathom *that as a deal breaker. Perhaps just as some can't imagine surviving time apart.

 

Why? There are many things many different people would never tolerate. I doubt I would leave my dh bc of adultery. Many women would in a heartbeat. Obviously if I married a military man, I'd obviously be willing to accept that. But if my dh went into the military KNOWING how much I don't want that marriage arrangement and how much I disagree with a man being away from his family that much if he can avoid it? Hell yes, I'd be furious, hurt, and it would not bode well for our marriage. I don't know that I'd divorce him for it. I doubt it. But that doesn't mean we'd have a dandy marriage either unless there was absolutely no other option. When that happens, of course one just has to do what they have to do. Why is being honest about that mean anything negative about you or your marriage?

 

I was replying to the person who was stating that people in the military deserve loving spouses. I agreed, but also stated that it was smart or at least good if a person was able to admit that they could not happily be that person - therefore avoid relationships with that type of person.

 

I don't think any less of person, or a relationship because one, or even both spouses travels a lot, or if they are able to tolerate, or even like being separated for long periods of time.

 

:iagree:

 

And I get that not everyone is cut out to be a military/traveling man wife. I knew a Navy wife would couldn't bring herself to pay a bill without her dh telling her to. She absolutely fell apart and couldn't take care of herself when her dh was gone for more than a week. That's not healthy.

 

I'm going to say something that will probably get me flamed, so be aware. If a grown woman cannot function without her man for more than a week, there is a problem. I never enjoyed it when dh was gone, and I wasn't exactly functioning at 100%, but I was an adult. I don't NEED my dh here just to function. I WANT him here because I love and appreciate him.

 

Oh geez. That is just a load of carp. No one is saying we aren't capable of functioning on our own. That's just as insulting as thinking a military wife can't have a very good marriage. Difference is, no one said that about military wives. They are presuming it is implied when I really do not think it is at all.

 

I agree. If someone says it's a deal breaker from the beginning, that is one thing. If someone says that it's a deal breaker if their spouse has to do it in the middle of their marriage, that bothers me. The phrase "deal breaker" usually means divorce and is usually reserved for things like Adultery, Addiction, and Abuse. Temporary separation due to a job does not fall under those.

 

Idk. Is it temporary or expected to be the new norm? I think everyone has said that a one time necessary 2 month separation stinks, but is not a problem to manage for most couples. Most have encouraged the OP to remember it will go by quickly and is temporary and for the over all benefit of the family.

 

But then the convo turned to what if it was repeated lengthy separations expected to continue until reitrement or death? Well for some of us, that would be a whole other issue and baring starvation or alien enemy invasion, we wouldn't think the price worth it. We would push hard to change the job situation as soon as possible. Sure we could do it. But we would never be happy doing it. And we would like to have a happy marriage. Some couples can be happy apart better then others. I don't think it has anything to do with how good their marriage or love is. I think it's just different dynamics. *shrugs*

[mommaduck]

I met my dh when we were 16, married at 19. Sure we weren't too sure about career choices, but we were in agreement that careers that involved long separations were off the table for both of us. And yes, if prior to marriage he had decided he wanted to join the military, I would have decided that maybe we were not well matched and not married him. He would have done the same if I had decided I wanted to enlist.

 

 

 

:iagree: I don't think it is a question of lesser marriages. It's about different marriages.

 

 

 

Why? There are many things many different people would never tolerate. I doubt I would leave my dh bc of adultery. Many women would in a heartbeat. Obviously if I married a military man, I'd obviously be willing to accept that. But if my dh went into the military KNOWING how much I don't want that marriage arrangement and how much I disagree with a man being away from his family that much if he can avoid it? Hell yes, I'd be furious, hurt, and it would not bode well for our marriage. I don't know that I'd divorce him for it. I doubt it. But that doesn't mean we'd have a dandy marriage either unless there was absolutely no other option. When that happens, of course one just has to do what they have to do. Why is being honest about that mean anything negative about you or your marriage?

 

 

 

:iagree:

 

 

 

Oh geez. That is just a load of carp. No one is saying we aren't capable of functioning on our own. That's just as insulting as thinking a military wife can't have a very good marriage. Difference is, no one said that about military wives. They are presuming it is implied when I really do not think it is at all.

 

 

 

Idk. Is it temporary or expected to be the new norm? I think everyone has said that a one time necessary 2 month separation stinks, but is not a problem to manage for most couples. Most have encouraged the OP to remember it will go by quickly and is temporary and for the over all benefit of the family.

 

But then the convo turned to what if it was repeated lengthy separations expected to continue until reitrement or death? Well for some of us, that would be a whole other issue and baring starvation or alien enemy invasion, we wouldn't think the price worth it. We would push hard to change the job situation as soon as possible. Sure we could do it. But we would never be happy doing it. And we would like to have a happy marriage. Some couples can be happy apart better then others. I don't think it has anything to do with how good their marriage or love is. I think it's just different dynamics. *shrugs*

For our family, it will be about four months initial separation followed by 1-3yrs of 3wks on the road/3days home. Then there will be the possibility of being home every few days or home every night. One thing leads to the possibility of the other.

 

We were in highschool when we started courting and go engaged. hehe went into the military. he came home.

[SonshineLearner]

I wouldn't, but that's just me. If I could, and I lived within driving distance of some friends, I might do some trips :)

[Murphy101]

Also, dh and I have talked repeatedly for many years about relocating. If he were to get a job out of state, we are in agreement that he would be there without us for 6 months or so while we see if the job is as solid as we hope and I settle things here. It's not like I or anyone really is saying they'd leave their dh if he had to go on a business trip for 2 weeks. Some, or maybe just me, are simply saying lots of separation would make both of them so unhappy that it just wouldn't work as a regular way of life for them.

[astrid]

It's the, "I could nevers," that I have a hard time with, and I too left the thread feeling defensive, and that somehow my marriage was less because we can & do survive time apart. I hate when he's away. My heart hurts (and I can't sleep). But it just isn't a deal breaker. I get that marriages are different, but time apart being a deal breaker? I guess I just can't fathom *that as a deal breaker. Perhaps just as some can't imagine surviving time apart.

 

Maybe those of us who have admitted that we could not/would not be in a marriage that involved long periods of separation feel, after reading this thread, that we're wimps, aren't able to "pull up our big girl panties" or have marriages that are unstable or tenuous. And of course there's the old standby-- that I'm somehow unpatriotic because I wouldn't marry a guy in the military? :001_huh: huh? I know that's how some of the posts here have made me feel.

 

Everyone is different. Every marriage is different. There is no one formula that's right for everyone. Who CARES what anyone else thinks of your marriage? If it works, keep on keepin' on, you know? Life's too short.

 

astrid

[TravelingChris]

We have done this a few times in our marriage= much less than many married couples. They were never only for two months- more like three to four months each time. We did it once when we didn't have kids, once when we had one, and once when we had three. If we ever did it know, we would only have one really again. No, I wouldn't freak out but now, unless he was deployed, I see no reason why we wouldn't meet up some time.

[Mrs Mungo]

It actually made our marriage much, much stronger. We HAD to talk about issues because neither one of us wanted to stew over a disagreement when he was leaving for a week/2 weeks/6 months the next day. I learned to appreciate him so much more when he was gone, and he appreciated my strength.

 

One thing that was interesting is that people felt it is/was/would be easier to be apart if your marriage is not strong or is not in a good place. My experience tells me that it is easiest when our marriage is great. We've only been separated a couple of times (and for relatively short periods) when our marriage wasn't in a good place, and that was MUCH MUCH more difficult. We work hard to keep our marriage strong and the lines of communication open.

 

I

:iagree: I don't think it is a question of lesser marriages. It's about different marriages.

 

You say that, but then you also say this:

 

Obviously if I married a military man, I'd obviously be willing to accept that. But if my dh went into the military KNOWING how much I don't want that marriage arrangement and how much I disagree with a man being away from his family that much if he can avoid it?

 

That statement implies that you disagree with it, period. That statement says more than this is your preference. That is the sort of thing people are reacting to.

 

But then the convo turned to what if it was repeated lengthy separations expected to continue until reitrement or death?

 

Retirement means something different in the military. Most jobs don't let you retire with half your pay at 40-45 years old.

[Murphy101]

Maybe those of us who have admitted that we could not/would not be in a marriage that involved long periods of separation feel, after reading this thread, that we're wimps, aren't able to "pull up our big girl panties" or have marriages that are unstable or tenuous. And of course there's the old standby-- that I'm somehow unpatriotic because I wouldn't marry a guy in the military? :001_huh: huh? I know that's how some of the posts here have made me feel.

 

Me too.

[Soror]

Maybe those of us who have admitted that we could not/would not be in a marriage that involved long periods of separation feel, after reading this thread, that we're wimps, aren't able to "pull up our big girl panties" or have marriages that are unstable or tenuous. And of course there's the old standby-- that I'm somehow unpatriotic because I wouldn't marry a guy in the military? :001_huh: huh? I know that's how some of the posts here have made me feel.

 

Everyone is different. Every marriage is different. There is no one formula that's right for everyone. Who CARES what anyone else thinks of your marriage? If it works, keep on keepin' on, you know? Life's too short.

 

astrid

 

:iagree: I could survive without my dh around. I'm not incompetent or such, or so delicate that I would cease to exist. But I wouldn't choose that life or enjoy it while he was gone. Dh's father was gone working a lot and we've talked about a similar career as the benefits and pay are better but neither of us wants that for our life, unless it was the only option. We'd rather live more simply.

 

However, what we would do or prefer has no bearing on anyone else. It is also just as insulting to those who would not want that life to be somehow painted as some poor weak woman who just isn't mature enough or some other such thing.

Edited October 1, 2012 by soror

[catz]

Ok, my DH started traveling for work a couple years ago after a LONG hiatus with no travel. I was super nervous about it and thought I would go bananas. But you know what? The first couple days were the worst adjustment and then we moved on. I intentionally did things with my kids that we normally wouldn't do (movie nights in our pajamas in our bed, eating out, getting extra take out, skyping dad at 10 pm, getting together with friends we don't see so often, chose to do some random house cleaning/de-junking). The longest period he's been gone is a month, and his travel is erratic so it's not like he's gone months out of the year. But it's been totally doable and fine and if he had to be gone 2 or 3 months, I wouldn't sweat it (although if he was going somewhere interesting overseas, I'd want us all to go if we could afford it!).

 

I think if I would have had an infant/toddler, I would have had a harder time with it and been more twitchy about getting some off time.

 

So on the front end it's a few days adjustment. But it's an adjustment again when he comes back too, so don't be surprised to have that on the back end.

 

You'll do great! 2 months is really a blink of an eye!:grouphug: My DH is leaving for France on Sunday. :glare::D I'm completely jealous, business meeting or no.

[astrid]

It is also just as insulting to those who would not want that life to be somehow painted as some poor weak women who just isn't mature enough or some other such thing.

 

I agree.

 

astrid

[SonshineLearner]

My DH has been talking that when one of his parents die (both 90) he is planing on going over to Canada for several months!!! I don't think I will be able to handle it.

Wow, that sounds extended!! I'd be wanting his parents to move to Australia, or think about moving there... or something. I remember your posts.... sounds like maybe he's thinking it's time to move home :(

[Audrey]

Well it wouldn't be a deal breaker (divorce?) for me, it would feel like a betrayal bc that is so completely not the marriage either of us has ever wanted.

 

I don't think it's that anyone thinks littler kids don't remember, it's just that they are more resilant and easier to distract.:grouphug:

 

 

Well, to me "deal breaker" isn't necessarily referring to divorce, but rather to the promises we made to each other when marrying. Betrayal is a good word for it, too. We talked about ALL kinds of things and some things were so important that to breach them or go back on promises would be "breaking the deal." When I make a promise, I keep it, no matter how hard it gets to do so. I expect the same of my spouse. We laid our hearts out to trust the other. Neither has a right to stomp on that.

 

Thanks for the hug. These kinds of discussions are almost little "triggers" for me sometimes. There really are some things you just never forget.

[GWOB]

Maybe those of us who have admitted that we could not/would not be in a marriage that involved long periods of separation feel, after reading this thread, that we're wimps, aren't able to "pull up our big girl panties" or have marriages that are unstable or tenuous. And of course there's the old standby-- that I'm somehow unpatriotic because I wouldn't marry a guy in the military? :001_huh: huh? I know that's how some of the posts here have made me feel.

 

Everyone is different. Every marriage is different. There is no one formula that's right for everyone. Who CARES what anyone else thinks of your marriage? If it works, keep on keepin' on, you know? Life's too short.

 

astrid

 

It's ok to admit you're "wimpy" because you know you couldn't deal with it. What is offensive is implying that people who deal with separations have "unstable" or "tenuous" marriages. Like you said above, each marriage is different. My marriage was pretty stable and solid the whole time dh was in the Navy.

[GWOB]

:iagree: I could survive without my dh around. I'm not incompetent or such, or so delicate that I would cease to exist. But I wouldn't choose that life or enjoy it while he was gone. Dh's father was gone working a lot and we've talked about a similar career as the benefits and pay are better but neither of us wants that for our life, unless it was the only option. We'd rather live more simply.

 

However, what we would do or prefer has no bearing on anyone else. It is also just as insulting to those who would not want that life to be somehow painted as some poor weak woman who just isn't mature enough or some other such thing.

 

I never meant to imply that people who choose not to live that life are poor weak women. We chose to leave the Navy after 10 years because we didn't feel like doing the whole separation thing anymore. That doesn't make me weak, just realistic.

[astrid]

It's ok to admit you're "wimpy" because you know you couldn't deal with it. What is offensive is implying that people who deal with separations have "unstable" or "tenuous" marriages. Like you said above, each marriage is different. My marriage was pretty stable and solid the whole time dh was in the Navy.

 

HUH? I did not admit that I am "wimpy," I said in OUR marriage, we would not be separated. Period. The implication of "wimpiness" came from others.

 

Nor did I ever imply that people who DO deal with separations in their marriage have "unstable" or "tenuous" marriages.

 

I'm glad your marriage was stable during your husband's naval service. That's a choice you made, and I'm saying that for my husband and myself, we chose not to have careers that would cause separation. We fell in love in high school, went to different colleges, married at 24, and have always, since our first date junior year of high school, been completely faithful and devoted.

 

OUR marriage looks different than yours. Not better or worse, and CERTAINLY not unstable.

 

But I *will* be able to sleep tonight even if Wendilouwho thinks I'm wimpy. Shrug.

 

astrid

Edited October 1, 2012 by astrid

[Impish]

*I* said I was a big wussy baby.

[Murphy101]

That statement implies that you disagree with it, period. That statement says more than this is your preference. That is the sort of thing people are reacting to.

 

No, it doesn't. It says that if MY dh KNOWS I feel strongly that HE not be away that much from HIS family, then I'm going to be very hurt if he purposely signs up to do it anyways unless he feels he has no other choice to put food on the table. Period, for ME.

 

Absolutely nothing is being implied about anyone else.

 

Retirement means something different in the military. Most jobs don't let you retire with half your pay at 40-45 years old.

 

I'm not sure what that has to do with anything. You seem focused on the military when I am not. ANY job that meant for YEARS my dh would be gone more often than here would be off the table unless it was a last resort this is literally necessary to eat situation. For US, the reward would have to be very high to make that sacrifice worth the unhappiness.

 

I'd be okay with it for a short time, maybe a year, two tops. IF it meant being significantly better off financially AND that he wouldn't have to do it anymore. But as a career? I'd have a very hard time with that becoming a normal life.

[Audrey]

Maybe those of us who have admitted that we could not/would not be in a marriage that involved long periods of separation feel, after reading this thread, that we're wimps, aren't able to "pull up our big girl panties" or have marriages that are unstable or tenuous. And of course there's the old standby-- that I'm somehow unpatriotic because I wouldn't marry a guy in the military? :001_huh: huh? I know that's how some of the posts here have made me feel.

 

Everyone is different. Every marriage is different. There is no one formula that's right for everyone. Who CARES what anyone else thinks of your marriage? If it works, keep on keepin' on, you know? Life's too short.

 

astrid

 

 

Been there done that, still have the boot print on my back. No thanks on a repeat.

 

 

That said, kudos to those military wives who stick it out and fight to keep their men sane and whole when the s#!t hits the fan. My mom was one because everybody needs a safe place to fall when they fall. She was a tougher old broad than I am. No doubt about that.

[SailorMom]

Maybe those of us who have admitted that we could not/would not be in a marriage that involved long periods of separation feel, after reading this thread, that we're wimps, aren't able to "pull up our big girl panties" or have marriages that are unstable or tenuous. And of course there's the old standby-- that I'm somehow unpatriotic because I wouldn't marry a guy in the military? :001_huh: huh? I know that's how some of the posts here have made me feel.

 

Everyone is different. Every marriage is different. There is no one formula that's right for everyone. Who CARES what anyone else thinks of your marriage? If it works, keep on keepin' on, you know? Life's too short.

 

astrid

 

 

I don't think any of us (military wives) are implying that any marriage isn't strong because they couldn't handle separation. We are being offended by the comments like "unstable and tenuous" - and I don't think the word "unpatriotic" ever came up.... The comments about not being able to be the right kind of (or a good) dad are grating, and I have to say - they hit us in a very vulnerable place. Military families constantly struggle making it all work for our kids, and a lot of us have guilt that we may be really shortchanging them. I don't rationally think we are - but it's still there. I worry a lot about my sons' relationship with their father, and he hates that he has to be gone so much now that they are teen boys.

 

The comments about military wives being able to "be happy" when we're apart.... I mean - sure - we aren't over here falling apart, lol, and I'm not miserable, but I'm never truly happy without my DH here. I'm happy to be with my kids, and my life is good, and I don't live in a hole while he's gone being all morose - but when he is gone it is like having a limb amputated....

 

We military spouses get comments all the time that are as irritating to us as some of the classically irritating homeschooling comments can be. We really kinda resent the lack of understanding about how a military marriage works. We don't like that people think we are so different - that there is a military wife gene we have, or that we enjoy the time away from our spouses like needed breaks. In my opinion, it has nothing to do with being strong or not. It is a choice - an act of will. We don't have some kind of special resilience - except for the kind that comes with experience - but we have to earn that the hard way.

 

I in no way want to sound like I'm insulting the marriages of people who say they cannot be apart - but I do think that those people need to understand a bit better those of us who do live that life.

[astrid]

I in no way want to sound like I'm insulting the marriages of people who say they cannot be apart - but I do think that those people need to understand a bit better those of us who do live that life.

 

I dont' think anyone called military marriages "tenuous" or "unstable." I used those words referring to those who admit (like myself) that we wouldn't be up for a long-distance marriage. Our choice not to be apart does not mean that our marriage is not strong, as the implication here has been.

 

I also don't think that it's a lack of understanding, at least on my part. I get it. You are able to be in a marriage that involves long separations. I would not be. Doesn't make you better or me wimpier, or vice versa. Just means we are in different marriages. And that's a good thing.

 

astrid

[GWOB]

HUH? I did not admit that I am "wimpy," I said in OUR marriage, we would not be separated. Period. The implication of "wimpiness" came from others.

 

Nor did I ever imply that people who DO deal with separations in their marriage have "unstable" or "tenuous" marriages.

 

I'm glad your marriage was stable during your husband's naval service. That's a choice you made, and I'm saying that for my husband and myself, we chose not to have careers that would cause separation. We fell in love in high school, went to different colleges, married at 24, and have always, since our first date junior year of high school, been completely faithful and devoted.

 

OUR marriage looks different than yours. Not better or worse, and CERTAINLY not unstable.

 

But I *will* be able to sleep tonight even if Wendilouwho thinks I'm wimpy. Shrug.

 

astrid

Noooo!!!! I'm not saying you (you Astrid) are wimpy!!! That's why I put it in quotes. Others had admitted they were wimpy. I was not calling you wimpy!

[astrid]

Ok. That's how I read it.

Thanks for the clarification.

 

astrid

[Mrs Mungo]

You seem focused on the military when I am not. ANY job that meant for YEARS my dh would be gone more often than here would be off the table unless it was a last resort this is literally necessary to eat situation. For US, the reward would have to be very high to make that sacrifice worth the unhappiness.

 

I'm focused on the military because you talked about having trouble finding the positives. For us, there are a lot of positives to a military lifestyle.

 

I'd be okay with it for a short time, maybe a year, two tops. IF it meant being significantly better off financially AND that he wouldn't have to do it anymore. But as a career? I'd have a very hard time with that becoming a normal life.

 

I just don't know that you really know what it looks like. My dh entered active duty long before 9/11. The separations before 9/11 (in general) were a month here for field training, a couple of months there for a school, a couple weeks TDY to help with some mission or other, maybe a 4 or 5 month deployment to Kosovo. After 9/11 things changed drastically because the OP-tempo picked up so much for everyone. We were already vested in the lifestyle at that point. We've lived around the world, we'll be able to put our kids through college, dh will retire at a young age and we will figure out what we want to do for the second half of our lives. And yes, we've had heart-stopping moments. I don't know what I'd do if something happened to him. But, for now, the benefits outweigh the negatives and the risks.

 

We don't have some kind of special resilience - except for the kind that comes with experience - but we have to earn that the hard way.

 

Exactly. I lived in one house my entire life with a large family around me. I had to make lots and lots of adjustments to my thinking along the way.

[GWOB]

Ok. That's how I read it.

Thanks for the clarification.

 

astrid

 

:grouphug: Sorry for the misunderstanding. I like you. I may disagree with some things you say, but I like you and wouldn't purposefully call you wimpy.

[astrid]

:grouphug: Sorry for the misunderstanding. I like you. I may disagree with some things you say, but I like you and wouldn't purposefully call you wimpy.

 

:001_smile:I like you too---- and thanks!

 

(but hon, ya gotta do something about that blue hair! :D)

 

astrid

[Parrothead]

This is us, too. We are not good apart, either one of us. I know so many of you will scoff and think us to be weenies, but we just. can't. be. apart. Not for very long, anyway. Oh, I have "big girl panties." Trust me on that one. But DH and I know in our cores that we were meant to be together always, no matter what.

 

astrid

I'm not scoffing, but I will freely admit it is not something I understand. Dh and I believe we were meant to be together always, but for us that does not mean being in each other's pockets. It would make me crazy to not have a bit of time apart now and again. I suppose that is why there are so many types of people. There will be someone compatible for everyone. :001_smile:

[Impish]

Just adding:

 

I know unexpected things come up. I mean, my disability changed a whole heck of a lot in our marriage.

 

So yeah, you roll w/the punches. I get that.

 

We're facing a situation where it's incredibly likely that Wolf will move ahead of us, and we'll be living apart for a period of time.

 

It won't be pleasant, I'll be this side of nuts (if I'm lucky :tongue_smilie:) by the time we're back under the same roof, but we'll make it through.

 

Part of it, no doubt, is what you're used to. Kids and I are used to Wolf being home every day. When he's away longer than normal, even if it's just past bedtime, the kids react.

 

If it's overnight...well, my Daddy addicts go into withdrawal. It aint pretty. :tongue_smilie:

 

Now that we're a cohesive unit (as opposed to when we were first married, and hadn't gotten there yet) Wolf has refused to pursue employment options that would have him away for extended periods of time, or w/great frequency. *He* couldn't hack being away from us for that amt of time anymore. He's miserable away from us.

 

Neither of us is cut out for it. And b/c we're not, it absolutely affects the kids.

 

That's how *our* family is. I don't know if some ppl would label us dangerously co-dependant, or what, but it's *our* normal.

 

He goes squirrely w/out us. We go squirrely w/out him. It's mutual.

 

If we *had* to have a change in lifestyle that meant Wolf was away from home 5/7 days, 52 wks a yr, then we would. It wouldn't be graceful, it wouldn't be pleasant, it wouldn't be easy, it wouldn't be happy, but we'd survive.

 

But, *if* there's a choice, we'd choose not to.

[Murphy101]

I'm focused on the military because you talked about having trouble finding the positives. For us, there are a lot of positives to a military lifestyle.

 

But that's just it. For YOU, there are lots of positives or at least enough to outweigh the negatives. But the very things you think are positives for YOU might be a negative for someone else.

 

I just don't know that you really know what it looks like. My dh entered active duty long before 9/11. The separations before 9/11 (in general) were a month here for field training, a couple of months there for a school, a couple weeks TDY to help with some mission or other, maybe a 4 or 5 month deployment to Kosovo. After 9/11 things changed drastically because the OP-tempo picked up so much for everyone. We were already vested in the lifestyle at that point. We've lived around the world, we'll be able to put our kids through college, dh will retire at a young age and we will figure out what we want to do for the second half of our lives. And yes, we've had heart-stopping moments. I don't know what I'd do if something happened to him. But, for now, the benefits outweigh the negatives and the risks.

 

And that's all great. For you. Not for me.:)

[astrid]

Being together doesn't mean we're in each other's pockets. He has his hobbies, I have mine, and we have several together. He has his friends, I have mine. We do things independently. But we chose not to be separated for months, weeks, or even days at a time.

 

astrid

[Parrothead]

:iagree: I could survive without my dh around. I'm not incompetent or such, or so delicate that I would cease to exist. But I wouldn't choose that life or enjoy it while he was gone. Dh's father was gone working a lot and we've talked about a similar career as the benefits and pay are better but neither of us wants that for our life, unless it was the only option. We'd rather live more simply.

 

However, what we would do or prefer has no bearing on anyone else. It is also just as insulting to those who would not want that life to be somehow painted as some poor weak woman who just isn't mature enough or some other such thing.

Unfortunately some do paint themselves as poor weak women who couldn't function without dh around. There were a couple earlier in this thread.

[Impish]

Being together doesn't mean we're in each other's pockets. He has his hobbies, I have mine, and we have several together. He has his friends, I have mine. We do things independently. But we chose not to be separated for months, weeks, or even days at a time.

 

astrid

:iagree:Yup, same here. 'cept for the hobbies. I have none. :tongue_smilie:

[Parrothead]

Being together doesn't mean we're in each other's pockets. He has his hobbies, I have mine, and we have several together. He has his friends, I have mine. We do things independently. But we chose not to be separated for months, weeks, or even days at a time.

 

astrid

I think it is comments that can be taken in more than one way that sometimes feel insulting to the other side. You said that you and your dh "were meant to be together always, no matter what". That is great. Wonderful even. But it doesn't mean that those wives who have traveling husbands aren't meant to be together always, not matter what.

 

Their together always is different from other people's together always.

 

Without clarification it reads like your model for marriage is the type that will lead to happily ever after but not the other model for marriage. It becomes an us v. them situation - our marriages are better than your marriages.

[Parrothead]

:iagree:Yup, same here. 'cept for the hobbies. I have none. :tongue_smilie:

Yeah, you do. Your hobby is the same as mine. Hanging around here. :D

[Impish]

Yeah, you do. Your hobby is the same as mine. Hanging around here. :D

Oh. I thought 'hobby' meant 'productive in some way' :tongue_smilie::lol:

[Parrothead]

Oh. I thought 'hobby' meant 'productive in some way' :tongue_smilie::lol:

I don't think hobbies have to be productive. :D

 

 

ETA: I think if two smart chickies such as ourselves think about it really hard, we could find some way that our time at the hive is productive.;)

Edited October 1, 2012 by Parrothead

[tammyw]

And that's all great. For you. Not for me.:)

 

Actually, this is a true statement. DH could have gotten out of the military (and would have if I wanted him to). It is true that the benefits of lifelong healthcare (we pay a small yearly fee), lifelong pension (as long as DH lives), and a good chunk towards their college made us stick with it. Those benefits will help us have a more secure future, and that was important to us.

 

He is almost finished with the military, and he is a pilot by trade, but he is purposely not going the route of commercial pilot because the time away from the family is too much (about half the time), and at this point we are Done.With.It.

 

That said, whatever job he gets may require some travel and while I don't like him being gone, it's life.

[astrid]

I think it is comments that can be taken in more than one way that sometimes feel insulting to the other side. You said that you and your dh "were meant to be together always, no matter what". That is great. Wonderful even. But it doesn't mean that those wives who have traveling husbands aren't meant to be together always, not matter what.

 

Their together always is different from other people's together always.

 

Without clarification it reads like your model for marriage is the type that will lead to happily ever after but not the other model for marriage. It becomes an us v. them situation - our marriages are better than your marriages.

 

Hmmm...... i don't see my comments that way at all. I see them as a personal response to the OP's question-- "....would it freak you out?" Yes, in MY marriage, it would. MINE. Not anyone else's. I didn't make any sort of judgements about anyone else's model for marriage. Just mine...... so I really (honestly) am surprised that it was taken as "Mine is the ONLY kind of marriage that will lead to happily ever after." Seriously....I dont' get it. Here's what I said:

 

This is us, too. We are not good apart, either one of us. I know so many of you will scoff and think us to be weenies, but we just. can't. be. apart. Not for very long, anyway. Oh, I have "big girl panties." Trust me on that one. But DH and I know in our cores that we were meant to be together always, no matter what.

 

astrid

 

Don't see where I spoke about anyone else, or even implied anything other than an agreement with the PP and a personal response to the OP. In fact, in a later post, I said this:

 

Everyone is different. Every marriage is different. There is no one formula that's right for everyone. Who CARES what anyone else thinks of your marriage? If it works, keep on keepin' on, you know? Life's too short.

 

So again, I do think I've tried pretty hard not to make any sort of judgements on anyone else--- but then again, I've been wrong before. And I have an only child, think cupcakes in school are fine, and use a crockpot with wild abandon. :D

 

astrid

[Impish]

So again, I do think I've tried pretty hard not to make any sort of judgements on anyone else--- but then again, I've been wrong before. And I have an only child, think cupcakes in school are fine, and use a crockpot with wild abandon. :D

 

astrid

:svengo:

[Parrothead]

Hmmm...... i don't see my comments that way at all. I see them as a personal response to the OP's question-- "....would it freak you out?" Yes, in MY marriage, it would. MINE. Not anyone else's. I didn't make any sort of judgements about anyone else's model for marriage. Just mine...... so I really (honestly) am surprised that it was taken as "Mine is the ONLY kind of marriage that will lead to happily ever after." Seriously....I dont' get it. Here's what I said:

 

Don't see where I spoke about anyone else, or even implied anything other than an agreement with the PP and a personal response to the OP. In fact, in a later post, I said this:

 

 

 

So again, I do think I've tried pretty hard not to make any sort of judgements on anyone else--- but then again, I've been wrong before. And I have an only child, think cupcakes in school are fine, and use a crockpot with wild abandon. :D

 

astrid

Okay, cool. I'm not arguing. If you don't see it, okay. We've been around long enough to know "tone" and all that. I just pointed out that it could be read differently by some people.

[RoundAbout]

Retirement means something different in the military. Most jobs don't let you retire with half your pay at 40-45 years old.

 

Honestly, this is a big reason we are staying at this point. I think a lot of people think military families are either dumb or just enormously self-sacrificing. We certainly wouldn't do this if it meant 50 years of constant deployments at this pace.

 

Now that DH's work is less satisfying, he would love to get out and spend more time at home. But the truth is there is a very big payoff for our family if DH stays in for 5 more years. Leaving now would mean walking away with nothing as the military is the only entity in the country that is allowed to break the 7 year retirement vesting rule and they offer no 401k matching. Staying 5 more years means financial security for our family, lifetime affordable healthcare, and massive flexibility for DH.

 

For us the calculus makes sense, and I've never whined about it, but I don't like people thinking or marriage is somehow "less than" or even "better than." Most military wives are just like anyone else, and we didn't start saying "Yay! Lets spend the next 20 years apart." My DH joined when we were already married and it was 1997 so no one would have predicted 10 years of war. We stayed because each assignment and duty station was more interesting than the last until... suddenly it sucked. Careers, and goals, and personalities, and families evolve over time until you end up where you are.

[astrid]

Okay, cool. I'm not arguing. If you don't see it, okay. We've been around long enough to know "tone" and all that. I just pointed out that it could be read differently by some people.

 

Well now..... I just don't understand, then, why those who have said that people who cannot be apart from their spouse are not being accused also of stating that they have the Secret To Happily Ever After? Just me? I didn't know I was nearly that profound.

 

And really-- i'm heavily medicated, struggling through a day at work with two bulging discs--- so no one has ANY business listening to ANYTHING I say. Trust me on that one. So at least today, "Happy Ever After" it aint.

 

astrid

[I.Dup.]

I would freak out. And we did 13 months apart at the beginning of our marriage. We are at another place though. My dh was gone for 1 month in April and I went and took the kids to stay with my parents because I didn't want to be alone. So yeah, I would freak out. :tongue_smilie:

[I.Dup.]

Unfortunately some do paint themselves as poor weak women who couldn't function without dh around. There were a couple earlier in this thread.

 

Woops. :lol:

 

My excuse is all of my kids. If I had a few less kids, sure, I think it would be a heck of a lot easier.

[Parrothead]

Well now..... I just don't understand, then, why those who have said that people who cannot be apart from their spouse are not being accused also of stating that they have the Secret To Happily Ever After? Just me? I didn't know I was nearly that profound.

 

And really-- i'm heavily medicated, struggling through a day at work with two bulging discs--- so no one has ANY business listening to ANYTHING I say. Trust me on that one. So at least today, "Happy Ever After" it aint.

 

astrid

Sweetie, my current headache and confusion about another situation currently going on in my life have my brain fried. The above makes no sense to me at all. :lol: I've read your first paragraph 4 times and can't figure out what it means.

 

Okay, so here. :grouphug: We will remain friends and slowly back away from this subject for the day. :D

[Parrothead]

Woops. :lol:

 

My excuse is all of my kids. If I had a few less kids, sure, I think it would be a heck of a lot easier.

Sometimes I wonder if we had been able to have more kids if dh's travels would have been easier. Then it wouldn't be just dd and me rattling around in the house alone for weeks on end. :D

[astrid]

Meaning--- if you read MY post to be a proclamation of the Secret To Wedded Bliss........ then why did you (collective "you") not feel that others who stated the opposite viewpoint, and much more strongly than I did, by the way, to be touting THEIR marriages as The Secret To Wedded Bliss?

 

If

 

ME: "dh and I can't be apart...just doesn't work for us" = The Secret to Happily Ever After, Everyone Should Live Like *I* Do

 

then why not

 

ANOTHER POSTER: "dh and I do very well apart, I keep the home fires burning, he provides for us, we make the most of the time we have together" = The Secret To Happily Ever After, Everyone Should Live Like *I* Do

 

I don't see the difference between what I said and what others have said.

 

Sorry about your headache. I'll share my drugs. :grouphug:

 

astrid

[Impish]

To heck w/you all!

 

*I* have the secret to marital bliss!

 

And I aint sharing.

 

So all you poor deluded fools can just fumble around, HOPING to be as blissfully happy as *I* am!

 

Neener neener neener!

 

*runs like heck*

[Mrs Mungo]

Meaning--- if you read MY post to be a proclamation of the Secret To Wedded Bliss........ then why did you (collective "you") not feel that others who stated the opposite viewpoint, and much more strongly than I did, by the way, to be touting THEIR marriages as The Secret To Wedded Bliss?

 

If

 

ME: "dh and I can't be apart...just doesn't work for us" = The Secret to Happily Ever After, Everyone Should Live Like *I* Do

 

then why not

 

ANOTHER POSTER: "dh and I do very well apart, I keep the home fires burning, he provides for us, we make the most of the time we have together" = The Secret To Happily Ever After, Everyone Should Live Like *I* Do

 

I don't see the difference between what I said and what others have said.

 

Sorry about your headache. I'll share my drugs. :grouphug:

 

astrid

 

Your comments weren't the ones that upset people. It was comments like these:

"I didn't get married so I could raise kids alone. Actually, I didn't get married bc I wanted to be alone in general."

 

"I have never ever appreciated being alone and having the entire family raising dumped on me. Ever. "

 

"I have a deep dislike of the concept that as long as a man is providing for his family it doesn't much matter if he is almost never actually with them."

 

"I disagree with a man being away from his family that much if he can avoid it"

 

There is the implication that a man who does those things is doing something selfish and wrong. That he is shorting his kids and family. Those are the sentiments to which people are reacting.