"It strikes me as being inherently erroneous to trace the problems of children to the foibles of adult romances. The problems of children are economic, not ethical, in origin. Except in the top 5-10 percent, parents have to work too much, and we have no European-style family support program. Divorce is mainly harmful because it impoverishes women, who usually have custody."
I disagree. Children, up to an age where they start to be brainwashed by TV, are far more sensitive to the emotional relationships of the adults around them, than to the amount of stuff they own. Provided they have food to eat, shelter, (and medical care when needed), and the love of their parents -- they are quite, quite allright. I grant that a huge percentage of the world's children do not have the basics and that many cannot get the emotional care they need because their parents are overworked and exhausted: but what the children need is love, not money. In this regard more "primitive" societies do better by their kids because at least the parents are around.
"Personally, I'm repulsed by talk about a dual family system, one for adult love and one for kids, though there's no reason on Earth somebody couldn't do that now. Of course, virtually nobody does because it's a hornet's nest of emotional trouble, and because people's rising expectation (having happiness at both levels) is a very good thing, even if often not done well."
It's not really a dual family system. It's a family system in which any parent (and there can be more than two parents) can have a close friend/lover out of the family orbit. This kind of arrangement was not that unusual in Europe in my parents' generation. In fact, my parents had a marriage more or less like that. And, you _can_ have happiness at both levels, just not usually with the same person. You know the saying: "Lovers come and go, but friends stay." Believe me, if it were socially accepted, it would not seem that weird.
Children don't really care about their parents' sexual lives. So far as they're concerned, their parents should have sex each time they want a child and no more. Children want the parents for themselves. When my son was five years old, he caught me and his father in a passionate embrace/kiss. Interposing his little body between ours, he pushed us apart and said, "I'm going to _ruin_ your sexual life." True story. I'd say he speaks for most five year olds. And six year olds. And seven year olds....
"Imagine the split system: "Goodnight, Jenny and Johnny! I'm off to my adult lover now! Don't worry about mommy. She's not really that sad. She'll cry herself to sleep.""
I found this very amusing. Why would the parents tell the kids they were off to see their adult lover? Do normal parents tell their kids that they're going to have sex? Why assume that it's the man who is going to go off to his tryst while mommy stays home crying? Why should she cry? Presumably, if this union is about the kids, she has her own lover and her own night out. True, this is not the greatest thing in terms of spontaneity, but judging from all the married childful couples I know, frequent, spontaneous sex is more a fantasy than a reality for them anyway.
There are no formulas. There was just the suggestion that we tend to conflate our passionate relationships with our family relationships and this this is not necessarily a good way to go.
Joanna