What is the optimum number of marriages for one life time?

A thoughtful answer, soz. Thanks.

Serenity is definitely something i would dearly love to achieve. (Never quite gotten there.)

But you know, involved "entanglements" (of which I've had a few) & reaching some sort of personal inner-peace seem to be almost at opposite ends of the experience spectrum to me.
(I don't think I've expressed myself very well, but I know what I mean. Anyway, just thinking out loud ...)



(God, I hope I haven't made this thread go all serious!)


Please carry on now ....

Jackie Onassis: 1st time for love, 2nd time for money, 3rd time for companionship.
Jilted wives: make sure he is first divorced, then marry.
In TX: 7 times.
For fundamentalist mormons: as many as you want.
Polyandry, where a woman marries more than one man.
Even if every man got married to one woman, there would still be more than thirty million females in USA who would not be able to get husbands (considering that America has twenty five million gays)

Personally 2 is enough

First time was for youthful lust, fun, and foolishness. (ended in divorce)
Second time was for mid-age companionship, intellectual stimulation and financial stablity, and more lust. (ended in his death)

Probably won't get married again. Will get lust fulfillment outside. (Don't need financial and I can attend lectures for the intellectual )

I'll jump in with the clown's answer. And the answer is...........1.

At least it is if you are really good at everything like I am. I mean, I'm a firm believer in getting things right the first time, thus I made sure to get things right and pick the right woman the first time. And since I never make mistakes, I knew she was the right one almost immediately. (Besides, she kept telling me she was the right woman, so I figured my hunch about her had to have been right.)

No, I know what you mean about entanglements.

I've had a few of those too, and they ended usually because they were "entanglements" -- because the costs outweighed the benefits.

I don't consider my current relationship to be in the same category. Serenity isn't constant to be sure but I have a fairly good handle on it, most of the time, and most of the time my relationship helps that along rather than hindering it.

Serenity now?




(Did you watch Seinfeld?)

Did I watch Seinfeld?

Did *I* watch Seinfeld?

Have you interacted with me at ALL in the last (um how many years omigod it's coming up on 10 isn't it) DECADE?




(yes.)

Oh good.

So you liked it then, eh?

You're so cute when you're all huffed up.

I'm NOT huffed!!!

<huff>

Yes I liked it.

To bring things sort of back on topic again, it was a great cultural primer for my husband, who was raised Catholic and had met like four Jewish people before me. (I'm not precisely Jewish but culturally I'm more Jewish than anything else except for maybe Midwestern.)

Worlds collide.
Spongeworthy.
Serenity now.
etcetcetcetcetc

All part of our everyday language.

My past partners each pleaded temporary insanity.

Wasn't Liz the same one who was one of Michael Jackson's closest friends? She is nothing if not supportive and willing to take a flyer for a romantic cause.

My question is, what does marriage actually 'change' within your relationship?
I mean, apart from the legal bumf and the £3 tax cut you'll get if the tories get into power- UK residents that is.
Maybe I'm naive in thinking that if I found someone I liked enough, then it would be enough for us to be together and be happy? I don't really like the idea of having a certificate that 'binds' you to that person, it almost feels like it degrades what you have together not strengthens it.
For me, that is.

it is not the paper, or even the promise, it is the identity. It is when you think of yourself as 1/2 of a couple along with being an individual. For some people being part of a couple takes priority over self.

There are a lot of people who are legally married whom I would not say are married.

Well said/written. The act of getting married shouldn't change the relationship, but alas, it seems to do just that and FAR too often. Some people feel trapped and at times can act like 'caged animals' when things go wrong. {If people would only have less children..but that's another rat-hole.}

Loyalty and 'proper committed couples behavior' is no guarantee just because a civil official or minister-priest-rabbi draws up a paper or performs a ceremony.

The behavior of masses around the contract of marriage has been changing for the last 40 or so years. For better or worse (in sickness and health), the effect of progress and social changes is far reaching - change such as more women in the work world (more independent financial security) effective birth control along with legalized abortion and greater social acceptance and respect for single women and single mothers. Perhaps divorce is far less of a stigma than ever, so multiple marriages seems to be a by-product?

oh nuts, I rambled off point...

Can the social result (of all these changes) be more multiple marriages depending on the stage of one's life? My guess is ... yes!

Three.

Once for love.

Once for riches.

And once for the helluvit.

Just be damned sure you know which is which.

0
zero
none



not any

I don't really have an answer. Despite all the wild stuff I have defended in one "relationships and marriage" thread or another, I am embarrassingly, ridiculously monogamous when I'm in love myself. So, I guess the best scenario for me would be to spend the rest of my life being serially monogamous. The number of "marriages" would be fairly arbitrary, and would be determined by the number of "Ms Rights" that happen to enter my life during periods when I'm single. Of course, there is always what mathematicians call the "trivial solution", in which that number turns out to be zero. That would be sub-optimal, but not too bad either.

I'm sorry, that was a bullshit answer. I forgot who I am there for a moment. The correct answer, of course, is 42. What was the question again?

Did I read "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy?"

Did *I* read "The Hitchhiker's Guide the the Galaxy?"


Oh wait that's not what you said. Never mind.


And I faht in your general die-rection.

(Does that about cover things? Need a bit of Dr. Who and maybe some Star Trek to round things out...) (Oh and some Simpsons, definitely.)

okay, i liken marriage to nelson muntz' thoughts on shoplifting "a victimless crime, like punching someone in the dark"