A man was so bothered by his wife's mother and brother that he opted for divorce. He remarries another woman, only to discover that his mother-in-law and brother-in-law remain the same. Seeking relief, he divorces once again, this time resolving to stay single. Nonetheless, he has the same brother-in-law.

How is this possible?

I admit that I did overlook "the brother" in the first line.  In reality I somewhat dismissed him, just including him as part of the family into which he had married; yes, I didn't think further about the relationship.

I took the view that our man had a brother-in-law by virtue of the fact that his sister was married, and to whom would not have mattered.

In light that you are insistent upon this brother being the said brother-in-law to whom he is bound, I concede; oh, and the title, yes, that certainly invalidates my point of view interesting as it might have been.

Posted by brianjn on 2008-05-27 03:30:27