I think there's a huge number of variables to all this... WAY to many to get into before I go pick up my friend to go for supper to celebrate my birthday (yay!) , but here's my "quick" response:

a) Influences: The big one in my mind is 'what did your parents do?'... If you saw that your parents had a strong marriage that gave them the resources they needed to be good parents to you, then I think you'll lean more heavily to "Strong Marriage = Happy Family"... But if you saw a weak marriage and suffered because your parents were too exhausted from it to attend to you, or a 'strong' (use that term loosely here) marriage that was so all-consuming to your parents that you were pushed aside, you'd be inclined to think "Kids Come First". I don't think there's a right or wrong, but personally, I've grown up around wonderful strong marriages and seen how it's benefited the children involved.

b) Does marriage # matter: Absolutely. I think stepfamilies present new challenges that weren't faced in the original biofamilies. I think the biological parent needs to be a little extra conscious of their parent-child relationship, to make sure it doesn't fall by the wayside. Personally, I still lean towards "Strong Marriage = Happy Family", but I think the parent-child bond has to become a little stronger than it may have been in the biofamily to make sure that any rough patches in the second marriage don't 'rob' the child.

c) Grey Areas and Strategies: I think our theory of that A__ and I both need to respect that we are important people in his dad's life applies here. The importance of different relationships MUST be respected by all parties involved to prevent "it's me or them" problems. And I think there's often more of a juggling act for the bioparent than there may have been in the original family. In my opinion, "Strong Marriage = Happy Family" is another way of saying "Everyone Comes First" - if the parents (bio or step) are having their emotional needs met in their marriage, they can better pass that along to the children.

Obviously there are exceptions where the child should come first... when a stepparent despises the child (then the parent should place the child's security first), or when it comes to a safety emergency (if we're caught in a fire or flood, I can probably take care of myself, but A__ is just a kid and his dad should help him if it ever came to an either/or choice), etc.

I also think there are also exceptions where the spouse should come first... when the stepchild hurls invectives at the stepparent without just provocation (the bioparent should step in and say "none of that in this house, buster"), or during an illness (I think it's OK to pack the kids off to Grandma's to spend a few nights at the hospital with your spouse), etc.

I agree with much of what ceph said. I think an additional consideration is that both partners in the marriage want the same thing. It's natural in the course of a family for the focus to shift and sometimes place more emphasis on the marriage and then more emphasis on the kids. If the couple can communicate effectively during the ebb and flow, it will grow a stronger family.

Ultimately, I fall on the "strong marriage/relationship = happy kids" side of the coin. It's like any organization - stonger leaders make strong organizations whether it's business, church, family - the same philosophy applies. Kids imitate what they see (again going back to ceph's point about upbringing influencing adult decisions). I honestly believe that my ss loves me in part b/c I make his dad happy. I heard him describe me to someone on the phone once and he said he likes me because I make his dad laugh alot. He has certainly seen us have some quibbles, but he sees us resolve it and that we're still happy. We're going through a phase where he's trying to understand that people can disagree and still forgive and love each other. He asked me some interesting questions about it just last week.

I really don't have a comment on the issue of whether it changes from bio to step families. My parents are still married and this will be my first marriage, as well as my fiance's first marriage. I suppose the circumstances are different, but the basic principle would still be the same regardless of the number of marriage (in my mind).

I applaud your efforts to try to sort through some of the issues, although you'll probably find that it will never be black and white answers you'll get. There are some extremists of course who will argue strongly for one side or the other, but personally, I belive balance falls in the middle.

One more thought: I would suspect the answers would also be divided by reasons why people choose to marry.

Some marry b/c they got pregnant before marriage and I would imagine are inclined to put the interest of the child first.

Some marry for the purpose of lifetime companionship - and I would imagine that they put their marriage first.

Others marry for the purpose of having a family - again, they probably put the kids first.

These are wild speculations, but certainly another factor to consider.

I agree with Ceph that there are many variables in answering all of those issues. But here's my opinion & thought:

a) what does everyone think are the factors that influence which approach someone will take on this issue?:

Personality is a primary factor. I was raised in a home with four children (I'm 3rd) and we may all have differing views, so while we are definitely influenced by our parent's marriage/divorce/life experiences, we are also influenced by our own life experiences. My belief that the marriage comes first is based on the belief that if the parent's are in a strong marriage, they offer more security to the family as a whole, thus the children benefit. I don't think it matters if it's a first or subsequent marriage. If the parent's are fighting and arguing because they don't agree with each other's parenting styles or values, it places the children in a home where there is disharmony. More so if the children know the parents are in disagreement over them. Children tend to blame themselves for things that happen and if the parents or parent/step's marriage does fail after the children witness fighting over how to deal with the children, they will most certainly blame themselves. My sister and her husband fight and argue all the time in front of their children and anyone that happens to be there. It's unhealthy for kids to see their parents act that way. It doesn't teach them how to get along. My belief is that in order for a child to learn how to have a strong, successful marriage, they must witness one. It doesn't have to be their parent's but that would be the best source since the parents' have the most influence over their children.

b) does it make a difference if the marriage in question is between both biological parents of the children or if it is a second or third or fourth marriage?:

As I said in part a, I don't think the number of the marriage matters. Although I do believe that in a second or subsequent marriages, you have the experience and lessons learned from prior marriages.

c) what are some possible grey areas and/or strategies for ensuring that "everyone comes first" or avoiding "either them or me" conflicts?:

First, when I say marriage comes first, I don't mean at the expense of the child. I really mean that family comes first and the marriage is the foundation for the family. There's a distinct difference between choosing the spouse over the child or doing what's best for the family. I will give an example so I don't get misunderstood.

Situation A: Dad is supposed to pick up his son on Friday evening for the weekend. At 3pm, his wife/GF calls him to say her co-worker just gave her a pair of tickets to a show she's been dying to see that night. Dad reminds her that he needs to pick up his son and she says, "oh, just pick him up in the morning. It's not like you do anything with him since he goes to bed a couple hours after he gets here. You'll have all weekend to hang out with him." So, not wanting to upset wife/gf, Dad calls up his son and tells him that he can't pick him up tonight, he'll be by in the morning to get him.

Situation B: When Dad lived on his own, when his son came to visit, they would stay up very late on Friday nights, eating pizza and watching movies or playing video games. Then on Saturday, they slept in and ate cold pizza for breakfast. It was their "guy time". Ever since Dad married step mom, the son has to go to bed at 10:00 pm on Fridays and step mom makes them a hot breakfast on Saturday mornings. The son really like his guy time with dad before step mom came along so he refuses to eat food "she" cooked. After dad and step mom discuss the problem, they agree that dad should spend some "guy time" on Saturdays while she's out shopping. The son still isn't satisfied. He accuses dad of loving step mom more than him.

In situation A, it's my opinion that dad is willing to disappoint his child because he doesn't want to upset his wife. In this situation, he's putting his own wants before the needs of his child.

In situation B, it's my opinion that when dad was single, he did things a bit more loosely (like some single parents do) but when he got married, he now had to consider how it affects his wife (and anyone else living in the home). Creating a bedtime and structure to the child's life, while still providing the parent/child time, is reasonable. The child needs to learn that the parent(s) make the rules and when it was just dad, he could be more flexible, but now they need to consider other people.

As for food, shelter, health & safety... the needs of the child ALWAYS come first.

I absolutelly disagree in regards to situation B. Both guys need "guy" time and for SM to insist that things need to be done her way is a guarantee to develop typical steap families issues.

Yes, children need to have rules and routine but it is not up to SM to immiddiatelly change old rules and push her rules onto a stepchild and her DH.

Eating cold pizza once a week or staying up late and have guy time is not big deal and should not effect "wife's" life at all.

What you described is a sure way to create hatred, barrier, conflict and pretty much a typical situation described by many SMs on this forum. The need of the child comes first, but on Friday night needs of the child is to have "father and son" time without SM's control.

My exH and I were both strong attachment parenting believers. So are all my kids, at least the adult ones. So is my sibling. So were my parents, although the term hadn't been invented then. So was my exH's mother (not so sure about his dad). And his grandmother, I think. Most of us are not particularly religious. And most people here know which camp I am in.

That doesn't mean you should take your daughter to her softball game while your husband is bleeding to death from a chainsaw accident.

finedreams, why don't you just answer with your views instead.

I'm not 100% sure I understand what you mean by "attachment parenting"...
I hadn't encountered that specific term so I went hunting on the internet and it doesn't seem to line up with your viewpoint. So if you mean something other than what the site I mention (and all the links it sends you to) means, can you please elaborate?

According to www.attachmentparenting.org, it's goal is to provide strong emotional bonds between parent and child by breastfeeding, nurturing touch, positive discipline, etc. Dr Sears (apparently the expert on the topic) says that nurturing attachment is being attuned to your child's needs and that some ways to do this are by avoiding pacifiers, having the child sleep in your room, carrying the baby in a sling, not circumcising, etc. Attachment parenting "seeks to strengthen families and increase awareness of the importance of secure attachment".

I don't see the disconnect between so-called "put the marriage first" and so-called "attachment parenting". One of the basics of it seems to be that the parent needs to be in an emotionally healthy, well-supported place, and I don't think that conflicts with my theory of "Strong marriage = Happy family"...
Unless your husband is a d!ck, he shouldn't feel that breastfeeding or carrying the baby in a sling is putting him second... and if your child truly is forming secure attachments, she should be comfortable with that Mommy and Daddy love each other too and the family doesn't revolve solely around her.

One of the chief criticisms of the theory is that it's incredibly strenuous so the parents need to have good support systems to do it effectively because of the intense input it requires (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attachment_parenting and links from there)
In my mind, that just backs the idea that the couple MUST have a strong relationship.

? Huh? I just did... I thought I was clear on my views.

There has to be some balance. Even if you want to put children first and do the best for them, how do you decide what is the best? And who decides? I think relationship between parents and children come first often but then sometimes it shouldn't.

Sometimes you put a child first,sometimes somebody else,depends on extreme nature of the situation.

In a situation you described it was somebody else's child and he thought that having their time alone is the best for the child. So relationship between a parent and a child came first. His wife decided to change it. She put marriage first. It was inapproriate in this situation because it was not her business. marriage cannot be first all the time.

Now let's say she was in labor or feeling very sick or in need of something crucial and DH continues playing games and eating pizza with his son, then it is ridiclous. He is
selfish and he needs to put his wife first. If his son gets upset, so what. he is being selfish too.

It depends on a situation.

I see both sides...
I see that SM might want more structure and I think that's OK, but she does need to respect the old way of life too.
I see that DS might see that his life is being tampered with and I understand his point of view, but I think that accusing dad of loving SM more and refusing to eat breakfast is manipulative.

My situation is a little like B: The guys used to watch movies or play video games until late on weekend nights, then A__ would get up early, feed himself and J__ would sleep a bit longer. I'm not keen on kids being up really late, or finding their own "breakfast" (I use that term loosely in this case) so I have requested a few minor modifications:
I happen to like "guy time" activities and am usually the one getting the ball rolling a movie night or video game tournament (my guys are so unorganized!), suggesting pizza because I'm bushed on a Friday night and don't feel like cooking. However, I do think that A__ should be getting ready for bed at 10:30 and tucked in at 11 so he's not a total bear the next day. But, since I get the evening going earlier, it works out for hours-of-fun-had-by-all.
If left to his own devices in the morning, A__ will disregard the leftover pizza and eat 11 mandarin oranges or a box of crackers and 2 L of juice or 6 creamsicles and then he has a tummyache all afternoon. So, I have brought in a request that A__ wake us up when he gets hungry, I get him something to eat and go back to sleep while he plays video games for another hour or so. His breakfast request is taken into account, if he wants oranges, then I get him an orange with a piece of toast and some yogurt and an "Here is another orange on the table. You can have it too if you want more. Stay out of the box of oranges please"

So, yes, I made modifications to their previous routine, but A__ is fine with all of them (other than the odd "but I'm not tiiiiiiiired!)

"if your child truly is forming secure attachments, she should be comfortable with that Mommy and Daddy love each other too and the family doesn't revolve solely around her."

The world view of infants and young children is that the world DOES revolve around them. People who believe in attachment parenting understand that.

You'd be surprised at how many men regard breastfeeding, especially breastfeeding that is not on a rigid schedule, as putting him second.

People who believe in attachment parenting generally don't leave their young infants with a babysitter. "Date night" includes the baby. They don't let the baby cry himself to sleep. They respond quickly to baby's cries. They often have a family bed.

I think it is definitely at the children come first end of the spectrum. That doesn't mean your marriage can not also be strong, as long as both parents are committed to attachment parenting. I am not sure why it is supposed to be strenuous - breastfeeding, for instance, is 1000 times easier than worrying about bottles. Breastmilk is always fresh, the right temperature, and handy.

I stand by that men who think they're coming second if their partner breastfeeds, are d!cks! Even if there are plenty of them who think that, it's a ridiculous notion. There's also plenty of men who call their partners wh0res after sex, but that doesn't mean they're not a bunch of jack@sses just because lots of them do it!

And while young children may BELIEVE the world revolves around them, the fact is that it doesn't. I fully understand that they perceive it does, babies are terribly selfish that way ;), but indulging that belief to the point that your romantic relationship suffers isn't going to do them any favours later in life. I certainly don't mean to say that since life isn't fair, you shouldn't pay attention to your child or make them feel special and loved, but why make them into little narcissists who think they are the only person who deserves one-on-one attention?

Plenty of people who believe in "marriage first" also don't generally leave their infants with sitters or let their baby cry and cry. My sister and BIL believe that their relationship is the primary one, but their little boy wasn't away from her for more than an hour or two for six months! If he was away from her, he was with my BIL. His grandma and I are the only people who babysat him until he was a year old when she went back to work and he started going to the sitter. They've only been out socially without him about four times in 16 months. But they think "Strong marriage = happy family".
I don't think you can say that attachment parenting and "marriage first" are mutually exclusive.

As for why it's strenuous - it appears to have little space for the parent to attend to their own needs and wants. So, given the idealized notions we have of parenthood, and particularly motherhood, a strategy placing that much pressure on being an intensive parent (and thus not allowing a lot of time to recharge yourself) sets people, particularly women, up for failure.
The strenuous aspect has nothing to do with that bottles are inconvenient, it has to do with the unrealistic expectations that a woman should put her own emotional needs totally aside for her children's and/or that children should be 'enough' to fulfill a woman's emotional needs.

"In a situation you described it was somebody else's child and he thought that having their time alone is the best for the child. So relationship between a parent and a child came first. His wife decided to change it. She put marriage first. It was inapproriate in this situation because it was not her business. marriage cannot be first all the time."

Can you point out from the situations, where it says SM decided anything? and in that situation, it was the child that missed the Friday night "guy time".

In life, things change. When you get married, when someone dies, when people get older, they change. I guess most people here are married. Is your married life, just as it was before you got married? Is it the same after you have children? What about when you were between marriages/relationship? Does it stay the same?

Perhaps when they (father/son) were the only ones home, they could be loud and not disturb anyone else. Maybe dad & step mom have a baby & maybe step mom has other children that are feeling it's unfair that stepdad's son gets to stay up late on Fridays while they have to go to bed by 9.

I didn't find attachment parenting all that strenuous.

It is not possible to make infants or toddlers into little narcissists. They are incapable of understanding at that age that the world doesn't revolve around them, and meeting all their needs as quickly as possible will give them the confidence to face the world when they have to as they get older.

Strong marriage and marriage first are not the same thing. You can have a strong marriage while putting your kids' needs first.

Of course things change after marriage, but one night a week to have "yours and your child's time" is not too much to ask. If you love your DH and love SKs (as much as you say you do) you would allow that time without your control. If other children feel it is unfair, then maybe you should give them their alone time with a parent as well -you or the other parent. You aren't attached to the hip with your DH. Children do need their time with parents.

well, both situation A and B are derived from my own life experiences.

In situation A, it is my SD's mom that calls to cancel when she'd rather do something else than pick up her daughter. It isn't a one time thing, this happens all the time and we deal with the daughter's disappointment.

In situation B, I was the parent that let my kids have a lot more freedom and hung out with them on weekends. When I got married, it was my choice to establish a bedtime and rules (of course my husband agreed) and yes, the kids resent him even though I made the decision. I also used to fall asleep on the couch watching movies but since getting married, I no longer do that. Again, my choice. I still have one on one time with my kids (even though now they are almost grown) but it was a change that I didn't feel was going to ruin my relationship with my children. And my husband loves me and if I wanted to continue to stay up, he would probably not like it but he would not stop me either. (of course, I am the one that makes a hot breakfast now, not my DH) and I feel that changing a few things were better for my kids, giving them a bedtime, sitting down together at the table for meals, etc. and at first, they resisted the changes but over time, they have adjusted and get along well with everyone in the family.

Your kids have a bedtime??? Aren't they in their late teens/early twenties?

lol

Absolutely, the 8 year old goes to bed at 8:30 (9 on weekends) my daughter, 17 and son's 18 & 20 have to be in by 11 on weekdays and if they stay out late on weekends, they have to let me know what time they'll be in or if they are staying at a friends.

Fortunately, my kids are not the partying type. They are usually home unless my 18 year old is at work (he gets home at 1 when he closes). The 11pm curfew means lights out. No all night computer or staying up all night playing video games or watching TV (which if they did, they would want to sleep all day)

It is one thing to ask your children to let you know if they are going to be late, so you don't worry - I ask that of my kids, and they in turn ask that of me. However, your son is old enough to close a store after midnight, not to mention old enough to go to war, yet you tell him when he has to go to bed. Of course they are resentful.

They aren't resentful NOW. They were resentful that I made changes but they have adjusted. They realize that I am putting their interests first. Perhaps I have higher expectations from my kids than you do, that's possible. I don't think it's in their best interest to let them lounge around and be lazy and live with me until they are 25 or 30. I want them to be responsible and following house rules, as ridiculous as you think that is, teaches them that even though they are legally adults, they still have boundaries. If they want complete freedom, they can go live on their own. There's an incentive for them if they don't like my rules, to work harder to get out on their own.

And you mention that they are old enough to go to war? My nephew is 19 and stationed in Iraq. Do you think boot camp (and the army) didn't have rules or a curfew? Why don't you send them a memo on it and let them know all their enlistees are grown ups that don't need a bedtime.

Oh please, of course there are rules like that in the Army. Its the Army. There are certainly a lot less rules in the average college dorm.

And I think TOS has very high expectations for her children, but she is willing to help them get there. If as I hope my DD attends not only college but graduate school, she may be living with me, at least on vacations, when she is 25. And no, I wouldnt suggest a curfew.

I think when SMs say kids have to support themsevles at an early age it can be harmful. And to force them out with excessive rules doesnt make sense to me.

I'm not my kids' step mom. I'm their mom and while i don't expect them to support themselves at an early age, I do expect them to abide by my rules while living in my house. You have your rules and that's up to you.

and I wouldn't expect anything i say to make sense to you.

Ima,

Now I am confused. Your not the SM, your the mom? And how long have these chlidlren been with you?

I have three children I have raised since the days they were born. My three bio children: Ages 17, 18, 20.

I also have three children I raised from when they were 1, 4 & 6. I left their father when they were 8, 11, & 13. They are now 17, 20 & 22.

I also have a step daughter that is 8. She lives with us full time.

I have high expectations of my children, and they have even higher expectations of themselves. All my children, except of course for the really young ones, are either in college or have completed college/graduate school. My kids don't need incentives to get a job or move out on their own. They are VERY independent, and the ones who have completed college are very successful in their professional careers.

Congrads TOS. I think a key to raisisng successful children is not going for the short term, like a job out of high school, but the longer term. And if that means they are at home, regularly or off and on, till 25, thats what it means. I think intact families are much more accepting of this. At least that is what the NY Times article on boomerag kids found. My X is contractually obligaed to pay for college etc., but he and GF wont provide a home.

It is all about priorities. For some priority is to turn the lights off at 11PM and eat at certain time and for some to give kids decent education. I'd rather see your son enrolled in college full time than being in bed at 11PM. In fact when they are enrolled in college, they often cannot afford going to bed early because there are essays to be typed or exams to be studied for etc But everybody has different perspective of what is important.

Also when they are busy with school (provided that they actually are trying in school) and maybe with side job, they are so tired that often collapse early. DD was often falling asleep at 9PM her first semester in college. No need for bedtime. Try to make education their priority and you'll see no need in enforcing bed time.

how in the he** did this become about bedtime and college? Congrats... once again, the thread is taken off topic and for some stupid reason my personal life is dragged into question. AGAIN.

Ladies,(term used loosely) I answered the OP with my opinion and views. I really could care less if you agree or disagree with ME. That's MY life, not yours. That wasn't the question posed. Instead of going off on a tangent about how wrong I am and telling me what your DD is doing (who's thinking THEY are better??), why don't you just respond to the OP?

If I want to put my 20 year old to bed with a 9pm curfew, THAT IS MY BUSINESS. Get a freakin LIFE!!!

Well said Ima!