Log in

Have you forgotten your password
Or do you need us to resend your activation email

A psychologist's perspective on

Becoming a parent




Having children – why it brings some couples together and drives others apart Having children is the single most life-changing event for any couple. Both men and women report that having children is the most intensely binding thing a couple can do. This, however, does not mean that having children will keep couples together as having children drives some apart.

It’s my impression gained from seeing couples in therapy, as well as my reading of research, that the couples who experience having children as one of the things that bind them ( but only one) make sure they carve out time to talk, have fun, and focus on each other.. The couples who break up are the ones who don’t; they lose the plot of what they ever loved about each other.

This paradox begins at the very beginning—pregnancy, a shared joy, but an uneven preoccupation between the couple. Notably sex and desire change. Then the arrival of the baby deepens the unevenness, as it’s usually one parent who is the main carer, the “preoccupied” parent, whose attention, time and energy focuses on the infant. And that gets repeated with each new baby and each important developmental change those children undergo. So the supply of attention and energy for each other becomes less and less. But love means you have to make choices. Often you reason that your partner is a grown-up and can fend for him or herself, but your kids can’t. That choice in favour of kids can become a knee-jerk reaction.

While fathers are now more involved in childcare than their own fathers, women are still more preoccupied with meeting the needs of the children. The imbalance leaves each partner abandoned in his or her own way—unattended, on the one hand, unsupported, on the other.

Couples who ‘make it’ redefine how love gets shown during childrearing. Quality, effort, and keeping curious about each other replace frequency (of sex, talking or going out) as measures of success. These need time, and when time is short time it needs carving out. One couple set their alarm to wake an hour before their daughter. Another, in therapy–she drifting into children and work, he into work and friends-- committed two nights a week to themselves, kick-starting their interest in each other and their sex lives. Sometimes coming to therapy itself does this: it may be the first time in years since couples have looked and listened, instead of privately concluding what the other thinks. It’s easy to forget who your partner is, and what pleasures and understandings he/she’s capable of providing. This is what can happen when you become only parents, rather than the lover you have been and can still be.

Janet Reibstein

alt text here

Janet Reibstein is a psychologist and Professor in the School of Psychology at the University of Exeter, and she has a private practice in London. Janet’s books include: The Best Kept Secret (2007, Bloomsbury); The Family Through Divorce (with Roger Bamber; 1997, Thorsons); Love Life (1997, Fourth Estate); Sexual Arrangements: Marriage and Affairs (1992, Heinemann). Her award-winning five-part documentary series, Love Life (broadcast in March 1997 on Channel 4) was based on her clinical work and research and earlier this year BBC Radio 4 broadcast Together Against the Odds a series of interviews highlighting factors involved in resilience and relationship success.

 

  • Facebook
  • Digg
  • Delicious
  • Twitter
  • Windows Live
  • MySpace
  • Google

Comments

  1. OddDingle on 09 March 2009 at 5:32pm said...

    Sometimes things find their own equilibrium when a couple have a baby. The roles are changed but the wish to incorporate the baby within the relationship rather than have it replace the relationship for the more "preoccupied" parent is paramount. Sometimes, however,  the baby dominates the relationship to such an extent that one parent, usually the woman, obtains all her needs for physical intimacy from the baby rather than her partner. Then things start to go seriiously wrong.

    If this pathology is accompanied by a refusal to talk about the relationship and find ways of affirming and nourishing the relationsihp between the partners then the relationship teeters on the edge of breakdown. The displaced parent can be regarded by the "preoccupied" parent as intruding into her intimacy with the baby. He has become a sperm donor with no parental rights of contact and yet with financial responsibilities.

    The "preoccupied" parent can acutally move out of the family home, taking the baby and can successfully apply for state aid to bring the babty up by herself.

    Rather than our society recognising the important issues described by Janet Reibstein and supporting a couple through this precarious time, the state provides an easy way for a mother to take the baby from the father, live in state funded accommodation and allow the father access only if she wishes. She is also legally entitled to demand a proportion of the salary of the estranged father.

    The psychological issues are well spelt out by Janet Reibstein. The state and society would do well to recognise them. The state, at the moment however, provides the "preoccupied" parent with the facility to leave, taking the baby, thus destroying the family.

     

  2. Anonymous on 27 March 2009 at 8:44pm said...

    what about taking into account the situation if inverted, the single mother who is forced to except sate help when the father refuses to pay for them but still expects to have a realtionship with the mother. the mother becomes the pre-occupied adult with the baby , so the boyfriend leaves because he knows the state will pay for them so he dosent need to, despite him having a well paid job and owning a property else where.

  3. Anonymous on 22 April 2009 at 9:14am said...

    lmkmjjjhhjvfdhjghfjfhh fhheddjki kjhweuiowe

Add your comment

Please or Sign up to add your comment. You will still be able to remain anonymous if you wish.