I agree with your comments about my parents' marriage. It would have been better if she could have realized earlier. I don't know if my father had any such realization before he died. (Don't forget I said they made each other miserable.)
Originally Posted By: Dom
you're not just asking "why is a long marriage, better than multiple shorter ones?" Seems like the full question on your mind is, more specifically, "why is a long miserable marriage, better than getting re-married, and being happy in the second one?"
No, I'm not asking that. I'm asking why we automatically assume that it's better for any given person to be in a long marriage than several ones that are shorter (but still, say, 8-10 years).
If we hear that someone has been married three times, the automatic assumption is that the person has no sticking power, is shallow, didn't want to work at the R, etc. All of which OR NONE OF WHICH may be true.
And, clearly, if both people want to make a marriage better and both are willing to work, a marriage can last a long time. THAT'S not my question or my issue.
Sort of like when I was first in the job market (1970-ish) when you put together your resume, you wanted to show a few years at each job, the longer the better. So if you had 10 years here and seven years there, that was good. Nowadays, in the job market, if you stay more than four or five years at a job, it's often assumed that you're stagnating, not ambitious, not challenging yourself. A resume can be okay if you only have two years at each job and there are several jobs (as long as each successive job shows a step up the ladder).
I'm asking why we automatically assume one long marriage (happy or unhappy) is better than several shorter ones when people now live into their 70's and 80's?
That REALLY is my question, but I'm looking forward to how you will distort it.
