SOFA - Start Often Finish rArely

> Traditional marriage is the ultimate form of this ideal. You're supposed to stick to it until you die, no matter what, come hell or high water, even if it makes you and everybody around you miserable. That is neither sane nor healthy!

An interesting philosophy, but I don’t think marriage is the best place to apply it. Writing a README and then never starting a project has practically no consequences. Same for picking up a book and then ditching it after a few minutes. Marriage? That’s a whole different ball game, especially when children are involved.

SOFA works great for marriage, if you tweak the params a little. Most secular people arrive at this by default: You marry your 3rd serious partner sometime in your late 20’s.

Start a lot of long term relationships, finish the one that sticks when both partners are mature and more or less done growing up.

I think there’s another shakeup period (statistically) in your mid to late 40’s. That seems related to when kids start being old enough that they don’t act as a forcing function as much.

And that's when those couples often get divorced.

There's strong value in staying with a first partner, like a high school sweetheart. Growing together through life's challenges creates deep emotional bonds and shared experiences. Long-term stability comes from building trust over time and avoiding the emotional toll of repeated breakups.

Couples who navigate growth together often develop stronger, more resilient partnerships.

> Couples who navigate growth together often develop stronger, more resilient partnerships.

Nowhere in that wisdom did the word “first” appear.

If at “first” you don’t succeed, keep looking for that partner who, by character, and suitability to you, who will “ navigate growth together”.

——

I feel like there is a stay-with-your-first crowd that has a lot of wisdom to share, but logically needs to recognize that commitment to an unworkable situation isn’t really what they are trying to promote.

Props to those that find that person, who will co-invest, can be co-patient, co-flexible, co-loyal, co-appreciative, co-vision the first time.

But those things are just as great, and important to find, regardless of the ordinal.

—

I think I have that! Number 3. Wish me luck for the future, but 8 years in I am very and honored happy now.

> Props to those that find that person, who will co-invest, can be co-patient, co-flexible, co-loyal, co-appreciative, co-vision the first time.

That's what dating is for. It's not magic if you've got your priorities figured out.

Priority number one must be seeing into the future.

People change as they go through life. People who grow never stop learning how to be more themselves, less of what they were taught or expected to be, or finding new paths.

Even the positive side of change can introduce profound instability and unhappiness into a relationship.

The idea that if people would just do everything right, no relationship would need to break up is an unhealthy, and completely unrealistic, judgement.

And it inadvertently prioritizes relationships over the people actually in them.

> And it inadvertently prioritizes relationships over the people actually in them.

An oath is an oath. You are an individualist, but social stability often matters more than the whims of individuals.

> The idea that if people would just do everything right, no relationship would need to break up is an unhealthy, and completely unrealistic, judgement.

When people are focused on their 'perfect wedding', you already know priorities are already way off. Marriages need to built on decent foundations, not just feelings. So, I can agree with you that a feelings-focused marriage in an impulse-driven society is unrealistic.

> When people are focused on their 'perfect wedding'

Perfect wedding? Who said anything about that?

> Marriages need to built on decent foundations

Well, yes. Did someone argue against that?

> not just feelings

"Feelings"? Which parent commenter said anything about that?

> So, I can agree with you that a feelings-focused marriage in an impulse-driven society is unrealistic.

Who are you talking to?

You have no idea who I am. How seriously I take commitments. How constructive I have remained in trying times. The end of my previous relationships involved serious circumstances, real people experiencing trauma and tragedy, and a great deal of lasting pain and loss.

Another person's misfortunes, which you have no knowledge of, are not a blank canvas you should be painting your careless assumptions and selective "values" on.