In Single Guy News, Slightly Tarnished Armenian Gal With A 72-Day Definition Of ‘Forever’ May Be Available

Posted on | October 31, 2011 | 42 Comments

by Smitty

Just a Conservative Girl quotes Her Kimness:

After careful consideration, I have decided to end my marriage. I hope everyone understands this was not an easy decision. I had hoped this marriage was forever, but sometimes things don’t work out as planned. We remain friends and wish each other the best.

In all seriousness, I hope she and the husband repent. The institution of marriage will outlive any individual idiocy, but that should not be an occasion to behave like an idiot.
So, if you’re loaded, have a two-dimensional, present tense view of what matters in life, and better hair than I do. . .no, pursue happiness instead.

Kris Humphries was reportedly blindsided, and not keen on being just another video tape in her collection.

I wish him the best in saving the marriage, and I thank the Lord that destiny did not put me in similar shoes.

Update: linked at the POH Diaries.

Category: Celebrities, Culture, Family, Farce, Rule 5, Uncategorized

Comments

42 Responses to “In Single Guy News, Slightly Tarnished Armenian Gal With A 72-Day Definition Of ‘Forever’ May Be Available”

Joe
October 31st, 2011 @ 6:59 pm

She had her family in the house all the time and I am sure he gave her an ultimatum…

So while it might be quick, it appears he has good grounds for a fault divorce here. No one should have their inlaws around all the time.
steve benton
October 31st, 2011 @ 7:21 pm

Ten million for the wedding. I think Barbie wanted to play princess at the Ball.
Steve in TN
October 31st, 2011 @ 7:25 pm

Reggie Bush warned him…
Mike F.
October 31st, 2011 @ 7:42 pm

This woman has been a public trainwreck from the moment she entered the public years ago. How does any man with at least two brain cells to rub together not foresee the inevitable disaster marriage to this media wh0re and her family would become? No sympathy.
moderncomments
October 31st, 2011 @ 8:00 pm

My law: The length of a marriage is inversely proportional to the cost of the wedding.
Anonymous
October 31st, 2011 @ 8:10 pm

She’s another in a long list of girls who are more interested in having a wedding than being married.
Anonymous
October 31st, 2011 @ 8:12 pm

You have a good point. My wedding cost about $4K, and we just celebrated our 26th anniversary.
Anonymous
October 31st, 2011 @ 8:14 pm

Exactly. When I was first married, my in-laws lived about 30 miles away…though I love ’em dearly, 30 miles was close enough!
smitty
October 31st, 2011 @ 8:17 pm

Excellent. Mrs. Other Smitty and I spent next to nothing. Nor did her family or mine.
richard mcenroe
October 31st, 2011 @ 8:24 pm

From the home movies of the ceremony and reception, the only fireworks came from Mrs. Other Smitty’s father and his Sears 12-bore…*g*
smitty
October 31st, 2011 @ 8:28 pm

Funny thing is, I went to tidy the yard before fetching Dorothee at the airport and destroyed myself with poison ivy. Imagine looking like a pound of hamburger at your wedding.
richard mcenroe
October 31st, 2011 @ 8:33 pm

Poison ivy, rock salt, so hard to tell those apart… but *ow* either way.
Edward
October 31st, 2011 @ 9:12 pm

Yeah ain’t that the truth. I’ve actually met women who have spent their free time planning their weddings and yet aren’t actually engaged to anyone.

I wonder if there is some sort of business opportunity in setting up fake weddings for “permanently single women”? It’s definitely some sort of American fetish.
Anonymous
October 31st, 2011 @ 9:31 pm

“No one should have their inlaws around all the time.”

Not everyone should have their wives around all the time, either. Take my wife… please!

/Henny Youngman-ism
Anonymous
October 31st, 2011 @ 10:06 pm

I really can’t understand that attitude. Instead of marrying someone just to have a big wedding, perhaps we should go back to the old cotillions. This way the ladies can get their ya-yas out over pretty dresses and stuff but without the lifetime commitment.
As The World Burns: Kardashian Divorce Edition - The POH Diaries
October 31st, 2011 @ 10:23 pm

[…] the serious side, it’s sad to see an institution like marriage used as a tool for getting ratings and raking in dough. But alas, that’s what we have here, no doubt in my […]
ThePaganTemple
October 31st, 2011 @ 10:38 pm

Smitty, why would you wish him “luck” in saving that fake ass marriage?
Anonymous
October 31st, 2011 @ 11:11 pm

I just wanted to go to the Justice of the Peace. However, before she died from cancer, my beloved stepmother insisted my dad use some of her life insurance to throw me a nice wedding. I wasn’t about to say no to her request. It turned out to be a great time.
Anonymous
October 31st, 2011 @ 11:19 pm

Ow. Ow. Ow. Ow.
Janet C
November 1st, 2011 @ 12:05 am

Money train says divorce. Smitty, what makes you think this was ever sincere?
Adjoran
November 1st, 2011 @ 12:15 am

Yup. And we could send gay men and transexuals to escort them.

Everybody wins!
Adjoran
November 1st, 2011 @ 12:16 am

Hope Humphries gets a chunk of Bob Kardashian’s money, since it is just going to waste anyway.
Anonymous
November 1st, 2011 @ 12:39 am

LOL!
just a conservative girl
November 1st, 2011 @ 12:44 am

I don’t see any repenting in either of their futures.
Joe
November 1st, 2011 @ 4:10 am

Not quite as bad as stories of people over doing it at the tanning salon…or (even worse) going with an instant tan and turning themselves into Charlie Crist for a month. At least you were trying to do something productive.
Joe
November 1st, 2011 @ 4:12 am

You can spend a few dollars and still not go over the top. It is a special day, but it should not be a down payment on a mansion.
Joe
November 1st, 2011 @ 4:14 am

Oh, I am hardly overly sympathetic. She is way too high maintenance.
Joe
November 1st, 2011 @ 4:15 am

And the special part comes from seriously making the commitment with your spouse and (if you are lucking) getting to share that with family and friends. But it is the commitment part, not the party that really matters.

Well that and the honeymoon.
Edward
November 1st, 2011 @ 9:12 am

LOL! Then they could all dance together in well choreographed moves while singing ABBA songs ….. wait.
McGehee
November 1st, 2011 @ 9:30 am

Heh. My in-laws were 4,500 miles away for the first five years of my marriage (now it’s just a three-hour drive). I’ve told my wife, though, that if we move farther away again and she needs to fly to visit her mother, I’ll drive her to the airport and pick her up when she gets back.

I could tolerate commercial air travel before the advent of the TSA but there ain’t nobody I love enough to put up with it now.
Dan
November 1st, 2011 @ 11:27 am

You guys got it wrong.

What we have here is a sadly not untypical story of a woman with a history of jumping many men, and now being unable to rest easy with just one man, at least not for any length of time.

That chick is utterly ruined, and despite her curvaceousness, no guy with half a brain would be tempted to do anything other with her than rail her thoroughly, and then dump her by the curbside.

Recent studies indicate that once a chick gets beyond 4 to five partners, her odds of getting divorced become almost a dead certainty. Women even with just three partners, likewise stand a very strong chance, VERY STRONG chance of getting divorced.

And when the studies mention divorce, they mean the WOMAN initiating the divorce because she can’t be happy in a monogamous relationship.

These women going off and railing like crazy are sure fire bets to wreak havoc with the hearts and lives of any man who comes across ’em.

She’s done.
Dm
November 1st, 2011 @ 11:34 am

Feel bad for ABBA now getting associated with the flamers.

There they were, back in the day, writing their little pop songs, SOS, Take a chance on me, etc., and little did they know that in less than a generation their songs would be glommed onto by the classless and the tasteless flamers out there.

Damn shame.

Can’t we pass legislation or something running ’em out of San Francisco? I mean where is it written in granite that they get to keep their delicate little paws all over that city.

Got to get them back in that closet, ———————– whose bright idea by the way was it to ever consider letting them out?
smitty
November 1st, 2011 @ 11:43 am

Re-read. I did not use ‘luck’, as I lack faith in such.
smitty
November 1st, 2011 @ 11:44 am

Assumption of sincerity is like presumption of innocence.
smitty
November 1st, 2011 @ 11:44 am

Done, Her Kimness may be, but we still have to hope all repent.
Anonymous
November 1st, 2011 @ 11:55 am

I’ve heard on the tele that the wedding invested 10 million for a return of 18 million from People magazine etc., don’t know what they thought of each other but it sounds more like a match made in a business agents office than heaven.
Anonymous
November 1st, 2011 @ 12:01 pm

Hmmm…That’s an interesting euphemism you have there. I may have to re-think these so-called high speed rail boondoggles.
Dm
November 1st, 2011 @ 2:13 pm

The presumption of innocence prevails in the court of law, specifically criminal court; but it nowhere obtains in the vast court of public opinion.

And I don’t know if it would be advisable that it do so.

I’m thinking the entire thing, from the get go, was nothing but a scheme to get her out there, pictures taken, fees received for “exclusive rights” to this, that or whatever aspect to the coverage of her wedding, {and of course the lengthy run-up thereto}, and afterwards, they split up.

I’m thinking the guy must have been in on it too.
Dm
November 1st, 2011 @ 2:14 pm

He got his hands on a good chunk of her curvy butt, ———- as for the money, I very much doubt it.
Dm
November 1st, 2011 @ 2:17 pm

You’d be well-advised to do so. But be mindful, many a man has taken a ride on that train, so infectious elements are likely to be plentiful.
Anonymous
November 1st, 2011 @ 4:35 pm

Now that my in-laws are getting older, I wish we weren’t so far apart (now 1,500 miles). They’re coming for Thanksgiving, which is great, but I know a time will come when they don’t want to put up with the hassle. And I really can’t blame them.
ThePaganTemple
November 1st, 2011 @ 9:32 pm

I guess I misread that, but the point is, that wasn’t a real marriage to begin with, so why try to prolong it? You could make the case if there were minor children involved, but that’s not the case here, I don’t think, so what’s the point? The Kardashians have turned the concept of celebrity into a sociopathic career. He’s well rid of her, whether he knows that yet or not.