If the guy has a new head is it the same guy though?? 🤔

If your parent dies and your step parent remarries there isn’t a familial line involved in my experience. Like their new partner doesn’t become your quarter parent.

i'm sorry I had to have a computer think for me but this is what it gave me

This is a delightfully strange thought experiment, and I see exactly why you’re asking. Let’s break it down, first without kids, then with kids weaving through the chain.

1. The basic chain: no kids

You’ve got a sequence like this:

· M₁ marries W₁. W₁ dies. · M₁ marries W₂ (40 years younger). M₁ dies. · W₂ marries M₂ (much younger). W₂ dies. · M₂ marries W₃ (much younger). M₂ dies. · … and so on, alternating.

Is it all one long chain of the same couple? No, it’s a relay race of spouses. Each new marriage involves a completely new person who wasn’t part of the original couple. What links them is that they “inherit” the previous widowed partner, but the couple itself is always a fresh pairing. You could call it a serial marital lineage, not a single couple.

The relationship between any two non-adjacent people in the chain is simply “my late spouse’s later spouse’s later spouse…”. There’s no standard family term for it. M₁ and M₂, for example, are co-husbands of W₂ (sequentially), but they have no legal or blood relation to each other.

1. Introducing kids into the chain

Now imagine each marriage in the chain produces children. Crucially, no inbreeding — everyone marries outside the chain. For simplicity:

· M₁ + W₁ have children A (Generation 1). · W₁ dies. M₁ + W₂ have children B (half-siblings of A, sharing father M₁). · M₁ dies. W₂ + M₂ have children C (half-siblings of B, sharing mother W₂). · W₂ dies. M₂ + W₃ have children D. · and so on.

Let’s map the relationships to the first set of kids A, and then “down the chain”.

For child A (from the original couple):

· W₂ was A’s stepmother (father’s second wife). That relationship remains even after M₁’s death, though legal ties often fade without adoption. · B are A’s half-siblings (same dad). · C are A’s half-sibling’s half-siblings — no blood relation to A. They are the children of A’s former stepmother with her new husband. You could say they are A’s ex-step-siblings or step-half-siblings — no standard term, just a biographical link. · M₂ is A’s stepmother’s new husband. Not a stepfather, because he didn’t marry A’s parent. In some extended family trees he might be called a step-stepfather (jokingly). · W₃ is even more remote: stepmother’s new husband’s new wife. That’s a step-step-stepmother — purely biographical.

What about “generation down” couples?

Suppose A marries someone X, completely outside the chain. Is M₂ (W₂’s second husband) a step-parent-in-law to the couple A + X? No. A’s in-laws are X’s parents. M₂ is not A’s parent, nor X’s. The link is too tenuous: “my father’s widow’s new husband”. That might be a quirky mention at a wedding but has zero legal or customary standing.

Now suppose B (child of M₁ & W₂) marries Y. B’s mother W₂ is still alive? If W₂ is still alive when B marries, M₂ would be B’s stepfather, because W₂ married M₂ while B was a child (possibly). In that case, M₂ is a step-parent to B, and he would be the stepfather-in-law to Y. That’s a standard relationship, as long as the step-relationship formed during B’s childhood or adulthood through marriage.

So the “many times removed” couples only become step-parents or in-laws to the specific children whose parent they married. The further the chain moves from those children, the more the role evaporates into “person my ancestor’s widow later married”.

1. A concrete multi-generation picture

Let’s make it visual with ages so you can see the strange generational overlaps:

· M₁ born 1900, W₁ 1900 → kid A born 1925. · W₁ dies, M₁ (now 50) marries W₂ born 1940 (40 yrs younger) → kid B born 1950. · M₁ dies, W₂ (now 30) marries M₂ born 1970 (40 yrs younger) → kid C born 1980. · W₂ dies, M₂ (now 40) marries W₃ born 2000 (40 yrs younger) → kid D born 2010.

Now:

· A is 25 years older than W₂ (her stepmother is younger than her). · B (born 1950) is 20 years older than stepfather M₂ (born 1970). · C (born 1980) is 20 years older than stepmother W₃ (born 2000).

When C marries someone Z in, say, 2010, his stepmother W₃ is only 10 years old at the wedding — a bizarre but legally valid stepmother-in-law to Z, because M₂ married W₃ while C was a child or adult. This can create intergenerational absurdities where step-parents are younger than stepchildren, but the titles stick.

1. Answering your core questions directly

What is the family dynamic here? A cascading string of remarriages that creates a web of half-siblings and step-relations across wildly mismatched generations. It’s not one couple but a lineage of conjugal partnerships that “hand off” younger spouses.

Is it all one long chain of the same couple? No. It’s a chain of different couples, each linked by one common member with the previous couple.

What if we start a generation removed? Are the many-times-removed couples step-parents or step-in-laws to the generation-down couples? It depends which “generation-down” couple you mean:

· For the children whose actual parent is in the later link of the chain, yes — the spouse of that parent is a step-parent, and thus an in-law to those children’s spouses. · For children further up the chain (e.g., A’s children, grandchildren of M₁), the later spouses are at most step-step-grandparents — a descriptive curiosity with no real familial weight. · The chain dissolves into “my ancestor’s widow’s later spouse’s later spouse” which no culture formalises.

In short: you’ve invented a marriage matryoshka where each generation’s step-relations nest inside the next, but the titles dilute quickly. Delightfully, it remains entirely legal and non-incestuous as long as no one marries a blood relative.

Its important to mention that the leg is also robotic. They're all androids.

Edit: It's not that important, I should've said "Just to clarify" instead.

Clicking on newer revision lets you walk through time.

There is plenty of porn on Wikimedia Commons.

Oh dang this is on Mastodon? Gotta follow this account now.

Also kidnapped Helen of Sparta when she was prepubescent so that he, already in his later years, could groom her and forcibly wed her. Also left the person who gave him the thread, who betrayed her entire family to save him, on an island in the middle of nowhere —as far as he was aware, left to die— without even giving her the decency of a goodbye, according to some sources. And no, don't come back at me with "Dionysus told him to do it in a dream". First, not in all sources, and second, do you make it a habit of immediately doing whatever your drunken night terror tells you to do, as long as you dreamed it, when the life of your paramour is on the line?

No, fuck Theseus. Should have been left to rot with his ass glued to a chair in hell.

"Ship of Theseus"? It's in reference to a ship which was used to row out to Delos every year for a ritual, but it was very specific that it had to be the same boat that Theseus used. So, as the pieces broke and had to be replaced, eventually every original plank, nail and line would have been replaced. After all of those replacements, which occurred one at a time over decades, is it still the same boat? If you collected all of the old replaced bits of the original boat, then put them together into a boat, would that be the original ship? At what point does it stop being the "ship of Theseus"?

If you're talking about History repeating itself, the joke is that the wikipedia page is, itself, now a ship of Theseus. It has the same URL (we call it the same thing), but none of the original remains. Is it still the same article?