Monogamy Isn't Realistic?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

MrsSpringsteen

Blue Crack Addict
Joined
Nov 30, 2002
Messages
29,244
Location
Edge's beanie closet
Not that Kate Hudson is some expert :wink: but it seems like so many people feel that way. Not to mention the way she says if her husband cheats, she just doesn't want to know. I think maybe most people want to know.

So is monogamy unrealistic ?



Hudson: Couples Have 'Power' for Monogamy
Aug 5, 7:40 AM EST


The Associated Press

NEW YORK -- Kate Hudson says monogamy isn't "realistic," but believes couples have the power to be faithful. In an interview Thursday on syndicated TV show "Access Hollywood," the 26-year-old actress said, "I don't believe (monogamy) is realistic. But, I believe that we, as people, have the power to make it happen."

She added: "I will not disrespect my husband and stray."

Hudson, the daughter of actress Goldie Hawn, married Black Crowes singer Chris Robinson on Dec. 31, 2000. The couple have an 18-month-old son, Ryder.

Asked if she believes Robinson has remained faithful, Hudson said, "If you focus your attention on that, then you are always wondering if your husband or men are out there cheating on you.

"If for some reason, that's what he has to go do, I just don't want to know. As long as things are good in our house, just please, don't get caught."
 
things aren't good in your house if your husband is cheating on you.

if she thinks monogamy 'isn't realistic', then why did they get married? and why would be it be disrespectful for her to cheat on him, but okay for him to cheat on her just so long as she doesn't know about it?

ugh. :down:

i think long term monogamy is a lot of work, but i don't think it's unrealistic if that's what both partners truly want. sure, everyone gets tempted at some point, but that doesn't mean monogamy is unrealistic.
 
I think she is trying to be realistic about the situation they are in. They probably both get a lot of people interested in them, and she can only speak for herself about how she will react. But I do find it interesting that she doesn't want to know. I broke up with someone because we disagreed on that topic. He said if you cheat don't tell me. I said if you cheat I need to know. But that's because our interpretation of the situation was different. He thought telling would make an affair important. I believe not telling makes a wedge between two people. It sounds like Kate believes the former, and it's understandable given the guy is a rock star and more likely to have a one time fling.
 
IMO, if you don't want to have honesty and trust, then really, what kind of relationship do you have?
 
I hear where she is comming from but if you cannot trust your husband than what kinda of a marriage is that. Just because he's a rock star doesn't mean he cannot keep it in his pants.
 
Actually I have a lot of respect for Kat Hudson coming out and being honest about this.

If you're married to a rock star, and he's really the love of your life and there's no one else for you, I think you've accepted the fact this is his lifestyle and she can't or doesn't seem intent on changing him, which I think can cause a lot of resentment in marriages. It's the way their marriage works, and she's not trying to lie to herself that it can be another way.

Some marriages are not steeped in this lifestyle, he is probably gone for awhile and she can't always be with him, so this is the choice they both have come up with. I think that is kind of honorable that she is being so realistic about it. Some marriages it wouldn't work, but isn't it better that they realise this than marry and it end in divorce and anger? I would think she was stupid if she didn't know it was going to happen.
 
from the same interview
Kate got some very good advice about raising her child from mom Goldie and mom's partner, Kurt Russell.

Goldie's words to Kate?

"Just remember that the second that baby comes out of you, it no longer belongs to you. You no longer possess that child. It's the best lesson you'll ever learn as a mother.


"That is a great philosophy on raising children," Billy said. "[Goldie] also has a great quote that I've been wrestling with as I read, 'All men cheat. They sow their seed. That's what they do'… if that's true then Chris, your husband cheats. I cheat, Kurt cheats."....

To me there is nothing more attractive when I see my husband finding another woman attractive."

"Really? That doesn't make you jealous?" Billy wondered.

"No," Kate said with a laugh.


Finding another woman attractive is one thing, and a natural human tendency.

And all men don't cheat either :| at least I hope they don't, maybe I'm just hopelessly naive :wink:

That "sow their seed" thing bugs me, as if men have no self-control and are controlled by..well you know
 
The "natural" argument that men cannot be monogamous is a cheap, modern cop-out.

My genetics eliminate my need for personal responsiblity. Right :|
 
Sounds like a lot of justification and rationalization is going on there in her head.
 
17 years my poor wife has been with me counting dating....

She is in good shape, I am an ugly bastard and no one else would have me:wink:
 
It does make men and women look bad....and rightfully so. We are bad.

The urge to be unfaithful and deceitful is pretty much the standard operating procedure in the world. People want happiness and they have had it for so long that they feel entitled to it now.

The reality is that there are a great many things worse than your spouse having a few flaws and peccadillos. If your sex life is bad, you can either improve it by discussing it with your partner or you can move on down to the next dildo attached to a heart. It all depends on your priorities.

But no monogamy is not realistic..and it probably kills kate hudson to stay faithful to her husband otherwise she wouldnt be rationalizing it so. People who are truly happy with each other dont think about those things too much

In the world we live in it is perfectly acceptable to have a lover on the side because the consequence of doing that is getting a divorce and nothing is more acceptable to most people than divorce...hell in some states you can fill out that paperwork and have it over with in a weekend....its no big deal...I dont agree with the attitude that divorce is no big deal and I have an extraordinarily low amount of respect for humanity in general but no matter how much I protest (or anyone else for that matter) the world is going to spin the way it wishes to spin...and as long as something is socially acceptable no matter how vile whether it be murder, rape, divorce, adultery,...whatever.....it will become more and more commonplace with time...people will do what they have always done....lose a little bit of their conscience with each step along the way.
 
I think the underlying philosophy of a lot of arguments here is that anything contrary to monogamy is automatically evil. For a lot of people (and myself), I understand why we'd be offended by that.

However, there are also some relationships and marriages that are explicitly open. As long as Kate Hudson and her husband have mutually agreed upon rules and are okay with it, I frankly don't care what they do with their lives.

Melon
 
melon said:
However, there are also some relationships and marriages that are explicitly open. As long as Kate Hudson and her husband have mutually agreed upon rules and are okay with it, I frankly don't care what they do with their lives.

Melon

I'm not sure it is matter of choice in this relationship, or at least Ms. Hudson didn't bother to explain it that way.
 
different strokes for different folks.

to many, it's the survival of the union that is of paramount importance. and if the survival of the union might be contingent upon lack of fidelity (which is not something i'd choose, but i also have never walked in Ms. Hudson's shoes), then i think they should do whatever they want.

i suppose i'd have almost a greater problem if someone wants to toss their marriage out the window over a single case of infidelity (not what Ms. Hudson was alluding to, necessarily). can't we forgive our partners? can't we understand that humans are weak and fallible?

for the life of me, i don't understand why the Clinton's don't get more credit from the social Right for sticking together and working on their marriage. call it a sham if you want (and you might be right), but at the very least, aren't they trying to provide a model for couples to stick together?

(do you feel loved?)

a good female friend of mine said that, for her, infidelity was a punishable offence, but not a deal breaker.

that sounds about right to me.
 
It is interesting reading this conversation from where I am sitting...in a country where polygamous marriage is not only acceptable but legal and practiced widely. The excuse I hear from people when we talk about it varies from the old standby "men have an itch they need to scratch" to "there are more women here than men, so men are obliged to marry several so that everyone gets a spouse" (total bullshit, but they believe it). What it all comes down to in the end though is sexual liberty for the man and sexual slavery for the woman. Women are not permitted to marry multiple men, it is a one-way street. Men say that their women understand and are even pro-polygamy but from what I see, it is more an acceptance of an entrenched system that one feels powerless to change. When your husband is allowed to find himself a second, third and fourth wife, he is not obliged to even be faithful. Ie. if he is sleeping around or dating, he can just say that he is courting a woman to be his other wife.

For the record, my observation has been that women here sleep around too. There seems to be a complete breakdown in the idea of fidelity because sex actually is equated with power (via money). If a woman has an affair, it will be with a man who has money that he can give her for her luxury purchases (nice clothes, cellphone, motorbike, etc.)

This may have nothing to bear on the subject, but it is just my observations from a place where monogamy is not the model. For myself, I think that only when men and women have equal power (educationally, socially, monetarily) can the idea of a truly "open" relationship be plausible.
 
^ probably because they want to spend their lives together regardless of whether they are 100% monogamous or not and would like all the legal benefits of marriage. This works for some couples.
 
People say that monogamy isn't 'natural'. Well maybe not but that does not mean it is not a good idea. There are a lot of things that we do that aren't 'natural'. Yes, monogamy is a social construct, but that doesn't mean it should be just thrown out the window.

Should we take this argument to its logical conclusion, go back and live in forests as our ancestors did? Let's forget about living in concrete structures and live in mud huts instead because after all, it's more 'natural'. I don't think many would want to do that!
 
I think the point is that one, or even a handful, of one night stands during the course of a lifelong loving marriage does not necessarily in and of itself lessen the strength of some marriages if these terms are an understanding within the marriage.
 
sulawesigirl4 said:
For myself, I think that only when men and women have equal power (educationally, socially, monetarily) can the idea of a truly "open" relationship be plausible.

I agree with you. And even when that equality exists, men and women tend to sleep around for different reasons. Men tend to do it just for the sex (even if the sex at home is good) while women tend to do it because their emotional needs aren't being met at home. So even while I do believe that these kinds of open marriages really do work for some hetero couples and my view is basically whatever people want to do within their marriage is fine with me and none of my business, I think open relationships work much better in gay couples where the motivation behind the infidelity is usually (not always) the same. Since most women (in this country anyway) tend not to sleep around outside the marriage just for the pure enjoyment of the sexual act, they are more likely to feel a bit like a doormat when they allow their man to sleep around while not having a need to do that themselves. So I guess I have mixed feelings on the subject (and I'm not sure if I'm even making sense).
 
nbcrusader said:
The value of marriage fell apart decades ago. It use to be a public sign of a private life-long committment.


i disagree.

i think marriage has evolved from an economically necessary arrangement (especially for women) into a union based on love, trust, and commitment. it's simply harder for people to stay together when they do not need each other economically. likewise, the empowerment of women (socially and economically) has enabled women to leave abusive marriages.

simply because the divorce rate is higher now (and slowly declining) than decades ago does not translate into stronger, healthier, more fulfilling marriages or better people. it's very easy to lapse into this kind of correlatory thinking, but the reality is that marriage is more of an ideal now than ever, and ideals do not always mesh with reality.

but when they do, how wonderful it is.
 
financeguy said:
People say that monogamy isn't 'natural'. Well maybe not but that does not mean it is not a good idea. There are a lot of things that we do that aren't 'natural'. Yes, monogamy is a social construct, but that doesn't mean it should be just thrown out the window.



agreed. i don't think that monogamy is necessary, but i think it's an ideal. i think people should strive for monogamy, even (and perhaps especially) if it means struggle.

but i also don't think i'd toss out years of love and commitment out the window over a single indiscretion.
 
Irvine511 said:


but i also don't think i'd toss out years of love and commitment out the window over a single indiscretion.

I would, because I would never be able to trust that person again.

Forgive? Yes, I might be able to forgive. In fact, I need to forgive - it is a command.

I forgive people for not paying back money they owe me, but I don't trust them enough to ever loan them money again.

People aren't animals; people aren't slaves to their libido.
 
Irvine511 said:

but i also don't think i'd toss out years of love and commitment out the window over a single indiscretion.

I'm usually more of an absolute person, but this is where I agree to a certain extent and will say for me it depends on the entire situation. As a golden rule, I would not toss out the relationship as long as doing so would require more effort on my part to convince myself I no longer loved that person than the amount of effort it would take to mend the relationship if I stayed in it. I hope that makes sense. It would also depend on the "indiscretion". If my bf or future husband or whatever went out LOOKING for a sexual partner or had spent some time flirting and maybe even developing a relationship with another woman, I doubt I could ever trust him again. Would I still love him? Yes, but part of love is trust and honesty. Now, if it were something like he went out w/ friends, got trashed, and woke up in some chicks room not even remembering what happened or how he got there and he came straight home and told me so we could deal with it, then I'd be more inclined to forgive and work it out from there.
 
Back
Top Bottom