You ask some tough questions. I have what I believe are good answers, but only if you are familiar with some ideas that are not necessarily well known to everybody.
Let me talk about something slightly off track for a bit, and perhaps you can see how it relates to Stanly Ann's behavior.
Years ago I knew of a case where a woman let her husband sleep with her daughter from a previous marriage, just so he would stay with her. She was so afraid of losing him, that she would tolerate him having sex with her daughter just as long as he stayed and paid the bills. If you have been around for awhile, you may know of similar such cases, and cases where a woman puts up with cheating and abuse, etc. There are many women (especially those who are self conscious as I believe Stanley Ann was) who are VERY AFRAID of losing their man. I could give you more examples, but I am going to presume you have seen similar examples before, and know what I am talking about.
Stanley Ann found herself alone after having Barack. I'm assuming her pool of guys willing to date her was rather small, prior to 1964, and so Lolo probably seemed like a God-send to her. When she first married him, she may have felt that he wanted her entire package, including her young son, but Barry was not well liked in Indonesia, and apparently the Indonesians were also prejudiced regarding him. By the time 1971 rolled around, she probably thought he would be happier in Hawaii, where the prejudice was far less than it was anywhere else she could think of, and she probably also thought Barry was causing friction between her and her man. I don't think she wanted to abandon him, I suspect she just felt it was in both his best interest and her best interest.
My own mother put us kids up in an adoption home because she simply couldn't afford to take care of us, and our worthless father had abandoned us years previously. Sometimes people do what they feel they must, rather than what they want.
Anyway, this way of looking at it makes sense to me.
Yes, and you have done an excellent job of defending them.
Anyway, this way of looking at it makes sense to me.
Your version has just about as much chance of being right as mine (or many others).
I am only pointing out that there are other 'explanations', and getting you to consider them. I do not care nor expect you to drop your position and adopt mine. It's not about winning, being 'right', at least to me.
It's about trying to get all the food laid out on the table before I eat. Everyone brings something different to the table.
If not, it would be a boring meal.