What could the latest celebrity breakup have to do with you – or me? Or our children, for that matter?
You’d have to be living under a rock not to have heard about socialite-reality TV star Kim Kardashian’s mega-watt wedding, and just 72 days later, her filing for divorce.
72 days, as of yesterday, when the news hit all the media outlets and pundits (along with celebrity watchers) began their musings and their dissections of the latest public marital meltdown.
But there was no meltdown, at least, not that we’re aware of. There were indications (in the press) of issues (per Kim), and subsequent stories abound that hubby Kris Humphries was caught off-guard by the divorce filing, just days after celebrating Kim’s 31st birthday together.
There is talk, understandably, of whether or not the entire marriage was a sham, and in our Fame-for-Fame zeitgeist, who wouldn’t give some credence to that possibility?
You might say this celebrity news bonanza has nothing to do with us.
With you, with me, with our children. With the way we enter into marriage and, at times, leave it.
You might claim “Starter Marriage” and thus, no harm no foul. Even more so, you think, because this celebrity couple wasn’t married long enough to begin their family, which makes ending the union even simpler – despite the media and money involved.
So what if they join the ranks of those on the list of shortest celebrity marriages that include Britney Spears and Drew Barrymore among others?
Yet if we constantly turn celebrity marriage and divorce into the stuff of headlines – and do so without examining what’s really going on – aren’t we negatively impacted all the same? Can’t we read the reported statement issued by Kim Kardashian – “After careful consideration, I have decided to end my marriage” – and consider it nonsensical? How can a few days or possibly weeks constitute “careful consideration” when it comes to filing for divorce?
As for what is going on – is it the need for attention? Romantic delusions? Sanctified sex? An utter lack of understanding when it comes to sustaining real relationships?
Yes, I’m using examples taken from La La Land, and we all know that Celebrity Time operates at lightning speed in comparison to the way time moves for the rest of us. But divorce can be a dreadful experience – a kind of death that drags on, for which there is never complete closure. Marriage isn’t a fling; it’s a commitment. Divorce shouldn’t be an “oops, my bad;” it ought to involve serious soul-searching and comprehension of its consequences.
Our tweens and teens see these Hollywood celebs – they skim the press, they gaze at the parties, they absorb the glitz and the glam, and likewise, the nonchalance with which we slip into fantasy weddings, and slip out of anything that doesn’t suit us. How could they not be affected by these impressions, especially with so many of us increasingly cycling through a series of marriages?
Most of us marry in good faith and with the hope that it will last. But the more I see of celebrity marriage and divorce, the more I read of reaching for “personal happiness,” the more emphasis we put on weddings rather than the substance of a solid marital relationship, the more we don’t discuss the need to form life partnerships on a basis that is more than romantic – I cringe, and I worry.
Whatever happened to relationships founded on common values and character? Chemistry is essential of course – as is, in my opinion, a healthy sex life. But without shared beliefs and consideration of your partner, what are we left with other than the perpetual dissolution of marriages, and likewise, the disappearance of anything recognizable as a stable family unit?
I believe in allowing individual marriages to take their own shape, and I do not believe that marriage is a necessity. But whatever form you give to commitment, I believe it’s important to do the work to honor it.
I believe Kim had already had an earlier “starter marriage”, this being her second.
I’m trying not to be judgmental (not easy), and instead will share some wise questions my father raised when he and my husband were discussing our getting married. My dad asked if we enjoyed doing projects around the house, and cooking and doing dishes together as well as traveling, entertaining, and having a healthy physical relationship, because at the end of the day and across many of the years, these are the things we’d be doing together, so we’d better enjoy each others’ company. My takeaway was marry someone you genuinely enjoy BEING with and someone you trust.
Maybe she’ll be more thoughtful going into her next marriage.
Quite right, SDD. This is (was) Kim’s second marriage. I wonder if we’re now into the days of “serial starter marriages.”
Your father’s points are well taken, and in my opinion, excellent advice.
The way that Twitter lit up after this story broke yesterday made me realize how warped our priorities are (and I’m indicting myself here too). I don’t know much about this young woman, but she seems to me to be of the Paris Hilton ilk – famous for no particular reason other than being young and attractive – and so yes, I think it’s very disconcerting to see both her wedding and the quick dissolution of her marriage getting so much attention. What’s the message here? Certainly not an emphasis on the qualities that should earn a person success or on the values that two people should share when entering into a commitment.
I still have to believe that parents have a bigger influence on most children than even the most famous of celebrities. But what about when the parents themselves aren’t positive examples of hard work, integrity, and commitment and then celebrities like this reinforce the negative example? Oy vey.
I agree, Kristen – this is part of a much broader dilemma relative to values, and perhaps our coping mechanisms when serious issues seem overwhelming, and we turn to the stuff of “lighter” fare. Where are the examples of hard work and what it yields today?
As for parents as the significant influence, while I might agree with you generally speaking, with 1 out of every 2 marriages resulting in divorce, what examples are our kids seeing?
And that doesn’t address the never marrieds (not that big a deal to me), but more importantly – the cycles of revolving door relationships that our children too often witness as the norm.
I think the nonchalance of celebrities about marriage affects us all. And I believe in marriage, commitment, family groups. Support is essential. I adore your last paragraph.
I wonder if you think there is a difference between the marriage done quickly and annulled quickly (like Britney Spears’s first) and those that last a matter of weeks after months of planning a wedding?
I’m not sure getting married should be easy. Dealing with family and finances and conflicts strikes me as good for a young couple thinking of building a life together. As does the feeling of community that surrounds couples at weddings. I don’t like the stigma that still surrounds divorce because I know some relationships are toxic, but I think dissolving a union needs to be at least as thought out (together!) as the wedding.
Kate – I love that you raise the issue of making marriage more difficult to enter into – and its dissolution requiring at least as much thought as went into the wedding!
Although her public statement is non-sensical, I think it perfectly represents the character of the marriage – “After careful consideration, I….”.
Where was her “husband” in that “consideration”?
I couldn’t agree with you more, Robert.
This confirms it. I live under a rock.
Yes, but it’s an activist rock with all good intentions, Paul. (Not to worry – I’ll keep you posted on the highlights (low lights?) of pop culture fare.)
I agree that with Kate that marriage should be more difficult. I think it’s sad that so many marriages are entered into with the “oh well, if it doesn’t work . . . ” attitude. Perhaps what we really need are lessons in commitment, reminders of what making a commitment truly means.
We do indeed need lessons in what commitment means, Carol. Well said.
” I believe it’s important to do the work to honor it.”
Amen, sister! When my first marriage dissolved, I was stunned. He did nothing. Absolutely nothing to save it. And then I realized. He did nothing to nurture the marriage when we were in it, either.
A willingness to work to make things better – or not. Sounds like your ex’s “nothing” told you everything, Jane. As is the case for many of us.
Perhaps we’re missing the forest for the stars here? We’re living in Andy Warhol’s future and everyone is already famous so now we have the uber-famous who want thirty minutes of fame which calls for drama which means do anything that gets attention. Thus, as Kristen points out, if it rates on Twitter its a winner. In these, possibly waning, days of fame as the benchmark of success, “success” is like being a drunk on a tightrope, coming as perpetually close to demise without actually demising to sustain interest in things that are only interesting due to their proximity to disaster.
If we, as a culture, cannot help but pay attention to these things, perhaps we need to pay deeper, rather than more, attention. Steve Jobs has left the building, James Hillman too—we’re left with devices to connect but also with the potential to realize that, as you point about about individual marriage not being a necessity, our preoccupation with coming together and coming apart may be about us, all of us, after all. As the individual, the ego, the Marlborough Man finds itself in the last stages of palliative care (i.e. lots of attention, the ambrosia of the ego) a new child is collectively conceived out of this two-thousand-year long one night stand.
Let’s hope that, together, we can muster the loving consciousness to be kind to the child-like stars and their prancing puppetry, for we collectively pull the strings and push the buttons. Look how special, look how important, look how interesting… (free of snark, we must add) for attention and nothing but attention can silence these lambs. And then the tired players can get back to rehab, back to therapy, back to dress-up time and the grown-ups can make dinner, something nourishing, and share it with each other along with fava beans and a good Chianti.
By bedtime, hopefully, there will be stories and sweet dreams.
A drunk on a tightrope. Love the image. Then again, there are so many other images of being on the brink of disaster that come to mind as well. So pass the Chianti, Bruce, so we may all weather the storm on our individual tightropes, until we can help each other down, and find (common) ground again.
You know I just don’t get some things.
A few years ago there was that couple that crashed some part where the president was in attendance. Then I heard about some people called the Kardashians and I thought it was that couple. Then I heard about them more and learned that was not the case.
But I just don’t understand this reality TV thing. And I don’t get who the Kardashians really are? Why them? Seriously, I don’t know anything other than they are on reality TV, did they get there because they were already rich and thus some people thought that might be interesting?
They are certainly rich now, but what’s so interesting about that? Bill Gates is rich, but I don’t see reality TV chronicling his family life; philanthropy must not be interesting, but frivolity is all the rage. I’d like to complain and role my eyes, but since these shows are apparently popular a lot of people don’t seem to share my confusion. But then I can’t stand the thought of gambling at a casino as entertainment either — my usual comment is “do you know how many books I could buy instead?”
I think parents can and should have a greater influence over their children, but do they? Society has a strong pull. You are apparently supposed to have a big wedding, little girls dream of being brides with big white dresses. I get parts of that; I wanted the dress too and to this day when I think about the cake I cringe because the baker specifically did what I said I did not want done — she’d argued with me about it. I cringe, but even so I don’t care. That was one day in my life (okay 2 days since the reception was a week after the wedding). But the wedding is not my marriage. Being married and sharing my life with Sweetheart is what my life is about. The wedding was a day to share to publicize that commitment with others, to share in our joy and celebrate together. But it was not about showing off — my dress was an heirloom and cost only the price of repairs–$100. Maybe that is showing off — I can show off how little we spent on the wedding because we would rather spend it on our marriage. The ceremony site was free. I had wanted the reception to be an afternoon potluck but Sweetheart’s dream was the more typical dinner provided — though not fancy.
So I don’t get it. I get that the royal wedding needed to be a big event because it was about the idea, and people across the world watch for it. But that was also a big event because of the protection they needed, something even reality stars should not need. And I actually did not find Kate’s dress to be over the top; it was beautiful not glitzy or showy. That wedding was about tradition.
But the Kardashian wedding was about spectacle. Refrain: I don’t get it. I’m just shaking my head as I write. It is this sort of attitude that demeans marriage — true marriage. And though I feel Kris Humphries should have been more cautious and waited before jumping into marrying her, I feel badly for him. He’s just a victim. Should he have known better? I don’t know, maybe. More head shaking…I don’t get it.
Marriage is about commitment. They met less than a year ago and she has already married and is now choosing to divorce. She did not even give consideration before marrying, so how can she have given any consideration to divorce. Consideration implies more than thought, it is thought integrated with time and the amount of time for something to be given consideration varies with what is being considered. Buying a new car, maybe a few weeks or even days of reviewing finances and cars. Marrying? A few years to get through the in-fatuation stage to see if love remains or if the fires of in-fatuation are the only fires.
This mockery of marriage and commitment sickens and saddens me. I don’t want to count this marriage, but that is not fair either because it’s not like Britney who thought it was just a joke — stupid joke. But Kris Humphries was serious, maybe naive, ignorant, blind… but I think he meant it and this is not fair to him.
Yes, I think it should be harder to get married. I think there should be a waiting period and maybe some sort of discount in the license or taxes (for the first year or first few years) could be offered for couples who go through pre-marital counseling. And maybe Marriage & Family classes should be a requirement for high school graduation and could be offered elsewhere for couples who already graduated.
I personally don’t like the idea of Starter Marriages because they allow an option for no commitment if a marriage is considered starter rather than just a marriage. But what about handfast, what about an engagement period being the starter and the wedding being the legal commitment. Couples who cohabit together before marriage have higher rates of divorce than those who do not. But maybe a lot of them do not enter the relationship committed, maybe (I don’t know, just brainstorming) couples who make a commitment to commit — engagement or handfast — would have different statistics… though I think such a commitment to commit would need to have a date; handfasting was traditionally a year-long contract I think. Maybe if children enter into such committing to commit relationships the ties could be binding earlier, maybe the legal process could begin with the engagement and be finalized with the later ceremony—in which case there would be a clause for if children are born before the finalization.
How do we as a society encourage certain behaviours without preaching and discourage certain behaviours without shaming?
Oh, there’s so much good stuff here to chew on, RollerCoasterRider! Thank you for this rich, thoughtful comment.
Could you speak a little more about “handfast” if you have a moment?
And I find your last remark so critical. The importance of teaching without preaching, and discouraging without shaming – and I would add, without blaming.
I think handfasting would be quite controversial today. It’s probably a bit like a common-law marriage in the eyes of many, except that I think common-law is simply a default for when a couple has lived together for such a long period that the law acknowledges they are like-married. Handfast is more official to the couple.
It is centuries old and I actually first heard of it when reading the Outlander novels by Diana Gabaldon—set in Scotland and later The Colonies. I think one of the purposes was to have a way of accepting a union when there was not an available legal or religious authority to officiate. A couple could make their commitment to each other and it was legally binding for a year.
From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handfasting): “It was an ancient custom in the Isles that a man take a maid as his wife and keep her for the space of a year without marrying her; and if she pleased him all the while, he married her at the end of the year and legitimatised her children; but if he did not love her, he returned her to her parents.”
I think that Wiccans or some other religious groups may have accepted the concept because I saw a book about handfasting in the Wiccan section of a metaphysical bookstore, but I didn’t read the book. Oh…just read more in Wikipedia, that same article has a section about neopaganism and handfasting.
I just found this site and it looks interesting. http://www.religioustolerance.org/mar_hand.htm
It talks about how it might have been a trial marriage which could be made permanent or that it is an engagement or intention to marry after a year’s time.
A friend of my Mom and Grandma’s recently got married; she is in her late 70s. She was away for the weekend and came back and told my Mom she just got married—suddenly. I think they’ve known each other. But my Mom went on to say they did not get legally married. They are catholic and were both visiting with a friend who is a monk or priest—and might have been a relative of one of them. The monk said that he should marry them… and so he did right then and there. So what they have is a marriage blessed by the church but with no legal ties to harm inheritance issues. I’ve talked about that before on your blog—should there be some sort of union for couples past child-bearing with adult children that protects inheritance?
I find handfasting interesting. But at the same time I admit to being cautious with discussing it myself. I’m not fundamentalist, but I do run a website for Standers—and was a Stander myself—and I don’t believe in divorce except in very limited circumstances. So what am I doing looking at handfasting? I may be old fashioned, but like so many today Sweetheart and I lived together before we were married—we lived together for 3 years. He was my first and for me that was a commitment to marry and I don’t think it is for many, but it is the way of the world in this age. When in Rome…
So would handfasting or official engagements be better for the period when a committed couple lives together before the legalization of their union? I can see my religious followers screaming at me! But we have to work within the context of our world because trying to bend it to the context we want will not only not work, it is disrespectful.
Legally there is a barrier to divorce meant to encourage staying married—since to divorce requires a legal process and outside people to make it official. But there are no such barriers to breaking off an engagement before the marriage is legalized. The in-fatuation stage typically lasts 18-36 months, so a couple that married quickly is more likely to be disillusioned when in-fatuation wears off—especially if that is what they think love is. Love is what remains after the hormones are not providing the energy. I think it is wise to get through that period so as to learn whether there is love—still eros but not lust without eros. In-fatuation can be how a true eros begins, but it is also how a relationship that will never be true eros begins and yet it is what we think eros is since eros is passionate and sexual love. Lust does not require eros for existence, but it can be hard to tell if there is eros when the hormones are surging. And eros is not something that happens—happenstance, luck, beyond personal control…eros is a choice; it is built and nurtured.
I recall that discussion of a means to have a union for those who may be a bit older, so that inheritance to grown children (among other things) remains unaffected. It’s a fascinating discussion – as is the topic of marriage alternatives. Likewise, your mentions of the infatuation period, and our need to know each other beyond its intoxicating influence.
Thank you for taking the time to go into this subject with such depth and thoughtfulness.
That marriage doesn’t pass the “so what” test for me. I understand that it will impact upon many people’s lives based on the fame aspect. But that is so depressing that I try not to dwell upon it. Is marriage an outdated construct?
You ask an important question, Gandalfe. Perhaps marriage as it exists in our culture is in need of tinkering… but there are so many interdependencies that are beyond the individual couple’ control, IMHO.
Kim came up in conversation in the O.R. this morning. Like Paul, I hadn’t got the news, but the nurses soon enlightened me. Attention is such a scarce resource. I think making those who get it a target of our put downs allows us to feel a little better.