What's wrong with George Clooney's bachelorhood?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

The actor says he's not getting married -- and the media speculates what could have led to this tragedy

It is a truth universally acknowledged that an internationally famous movie star, in possession of an Academy Award, numerous accolades as the Sexiest Man Alive and a reputation as the handsomest humanitarian to ever contract malaria, must be in want of a wife. Unless he's George Clooney.

Appearing on the already distinctively lively "Piers Morgan Tonight" show, the man for whom the tuxedo seems to have been invented unequivocally admitted his lack of interest in matrimony to his father, Morgan and the world. "I hate to blow your whole news story, but I was married," he said, alluding to the four-year marriage to actress Talia Balsam that ended in 1993. The actor, who described a recent trip to the Sudan in which he contracted malaria as "good fun," clearly harbors no similar sentiments about the institution of matrimony. "I gave it a shot," he shrugged, adding that his track record has "proven how good I was at it." Is that the sound of a million dreams dying?

Clooney's commitment to non-commitment isn't news – in 2007 his former costar Michelle Pfeiffer confessed he's wagered her $100,000 that he'll never wed again. And two years ago, he expressed admiration for his friend Brad Pitt's prodigious brood by saying: "I couldn't do what Brad and Angie are doing. I wouldn't have the patience or dedication you need to take care of a family. I admire those qualities in other people but it's not for me. If I need to surround myself with children and feel like I have this big extended family, I can always call Brad and Angie and ask them to stay with me, just to remind me why I'm so happy."

But the notion that the most irresistible man in the world has marital cold feet and zero paternal instincts doesn't sit right with everybody. How can an anguished populace make sense of this crazy news? Theories about what's really going on here abound. First, of course, faster than you can say, "He must be gay," Internet commenters have been chiming in that Clooney, who has dated Italian model Elisabetta Canalis for two years, must be gay. "I know agents in Hollywood who, in the strictest confidence insists that Clooney is gay," confided one CNN poster, while another on E! quickly surmised: "He is as gay as Rock Hudson. He's fooling no one."

Others can't make sense of his quitter attitude, like the commenter on Us who said, "I don't get his negative view of marriage. He has also failed at some movies yet he tries again." And then there are those who simply refuse to believe the man. At The Stir, writer Amy Boshnack opined, "We've heard so many other celebs (and regular folk) say they were never going to marry again, just to end up eating their words," and optimistically observing that " If [Howard] Stern can marry again, I think anyone can!" And E! blogger Bruna Nessif pep talked, "Oh, chin up Georgey! Practice makes perfect," while musing, "Can't help but wonder how Elisabetta is taking this news." Here's a kooky idea. Maybe he just doesn't want to get married. Maybe he doesn't want to have kids. In fact, that's the theory I'm going with.

The conventional expectation that human beings long to pair off, make it official, and reproduce -- even after previous attempts haven't exactly panned out -- certainly isn't far-fetched. The romantic dream of the "Happy Ending" is what fuels failure-riddled TV franchises like "The Bachelor," and makes guys like Jesse James keep walking down the aisle again and again and again.

So for Clooney to own up that the "shot" he gave marriage was sufficient for one lifetime -- and the implication that such a view would be tenable for his gorgeous, 32-year-old girlfriend -- flies in the face of all that makes up the often messy, complicated Vows section of the Times compelling. Love without marriage and baby carriage? Does. Not. Compute. And coming just days after that other rich, famous, so altar-shy-she's-got-to-be-gay humanitarian Oprah Winfrey similarly told Piers Morgan that "I'm not getting married," it would seem that asserting that one is not tying the knot is rapidly becoming the running revelatory theme of Morgan's new show.

But as Clooney's and Winfrey's statements – and the experience of plenty of contentedly unwed and divorced individuals -- bear out, saying that you don't give a nuptial damn is rarely the end of the speculation. Nosy aunts will always want to know where this thing with this new girlfriend is going, catty co-workers will always conflate a lack of desire for a gold band with a serious case of suppressed homosexuality. Yet gay people do get married. Straight people have lasting, loving relationships without clergy. People form families with or without a Pottery Barn registry. And somehow the institution of marriage still thrives, even without Batman's endorsement.

Perhaps it's because as Oprah says, "I want to make you a meal when I want to make you a meal. I don't want it to be my responsibility to make you a meal." Or it's because as a twice-divorced friend puts it: "I'll have lovers. I'd like a partner. But husbands? I'm done." Whatever the reason or reasons for one's intimate life choices, surely being upfront about them beats the hell out of pretending you're just waiting for "the right one" to come along to make it legal. Being single is not the default until one strolls down the aisle. For many, like Clooney, it's the destination. And sometimes, even if nobody believes you, you just have to stand before the world and say, "I don't."

GENIUS. Hear-hear!!!! This, in fact, calls for a smiley:

I wish everyone would just let it go already. Why is it wrong for someone to not want to get married?

You said it Bunny!!!! I'd give you 3 "+" if I could!

Bunny -- that's exactly what the article is saying!

Oprah says, "I want to make you a meal when I want to make you a meal. I don't want it to be my responsibility to make you a meal."

What decade is Oprah living in that marriage involves responsibility for cooking?

Maybe Stedman can't cook? Although pretty sure that is a moot point with Oprah as she has a cook and cleaner etc. If George doesn't want to get married I am glad he has the guts to stick by it. He has clearly let it be known but then there is always a girl who thinks she can change his mind....

Seriously, Caged, it is people's f*cked up ideas about marriage that are killing it dead. If we could just take a deep breath and stop rigidly defining the roles of "wife" and "husband" (or get rid of those overladen words entirely), people might have more flexibility in understanding what a long-term partnership actually means.

Oprah, clearly, is not that advanced.

Caged wrote:Oprah says, "I want to make you a meal when I want to make you a meal. I don't want it to be my responsibility to make you a meal."

What decade is Oprah living in that marriage involves responsibility for cooking?

Exactly that's a ridiculous excuse for not wanting to get married in this day and age. My three sons all know how to cook, clean and do laundry. There's no reason in the world for that to be assigned to the females in the house since that's just me anyway! Hahaha

No, seriously, when I was growing up my mother wouldn't allow my brother to do ANY housework! No, he had two older sisters and two younger sisters to take care of his EVERY need. She used to bitch about my father being raised like he was a king and then she did the very same with her own son. So I know where Oprah is coming from BUT things today aren't the way WE were raised and someone as informed as she is should know that.

And I might also add that my aunt, her only sister had 4 boys and ALL of them learned to cook and clean too. She thought my mother was nuts raising him the "old country" way. My mother for some reason just wouldn't break out of that old sterotype but her sister had NO PROBLEM doing it. It's a matter of attitude about relationships and responsibility in a partnership and how that should be handled.

All my sons cook, do laundry, clean house, etc. as they were raised to take care of themselves. My husband and I take turns cooking, when one cooks the other cleans up. I understand years ago it was the responsiblity of the female to be the housewife but does Oprah really think that is the way it is today? How long have we had two income families versus the man bringing in the only income, as long as I can remember.

Why does one need a reason, can't they just say 'I have no desire to marry'. I don't think they ask people why they get married but maybe it is because someone might say ' I wanted to have to cook for someone'. Okay I was being sarcastic.

Same thing when a young couple gets married and in the reception line they're already being asked "when will the babies come?" Some people don't want kids. Some people don't want marriage. Let it go...

I believe that Oprah was making a rhetorical statement with regards to the cooking. And I agree with Bunny, let the guy have his own life. The media seems to think that they can change him by pressuring him into the marraige thing rather than accept him for who he is? This is the same type of attitude that wrecks most relationships. Stop trying to change someone and accept them for who they are! jeesh

He needs all his energy to make some good movies.

Agreed Atalante! George should just focus on what he loves most - making the films he wants to make. Everyone should leave him alone about marriage and babies and girlfriends. If he has the need, there are ways of handling that - no pun intended.

need of?

sex

any love?

Maybe he doesn't want that, or at least hasn't found the right one to be in love with. But, that would be a committment that I don't think he wants at this time. JMHO

A guy I know is living with his girlfriend and said to me, "Marriage -- it's just a piece of paper -- so why bother." He said this in front of his live-in girlfriend. Unfortunately, I could see in her eyes that it was bothering her. Frankly, I doubt they'll make it in the long term cause they have different attitudes about commitment. His view is that they're already living together so why bother with the paper? He's getting the milk from the cow so why bother buying the cow. (Which seriously is an awful analogy given that it compares women to cows but it's the saying that fits the situation).

And aside from some legal issues (i.e. they bought a home together) and some issues should he get ill and she would not have any say on his care and vice versa - then he is correct. But I think her biological clock is ticking and she's worried that perhaps she may be wasting her time with a man who will never commit to her. She is under pressure from different areas - not only from herself and her own expectations, but also her family's expectations and the pressure that society puts on women. I believe the emotional toll it will take on her will probably lead to her leaving if he doesn't change his mind.

She will start to find herself feeling as if she is lacking in some way because the man doesn't want to marry her. It will lead to resentment and anger and if left to fester long enough - the end of the relationship.

So using that example as an analogy - one has to ask - are all of George's relationships eventually doomed because in the end the woman he's with will eventually feel there is something wrong with HER because he doesn't want to make a long term commitment to her?

Society doesn't help the matter. Friends asking when are you getting married? When will I be able to dance at your wedding? etc. And in George's case the endless speculation by media and his fans doesn't help the situation!

George will most likely never marry again because he doesn't need it. He doesn't want children so he doesn't have society frowning on him (figuratively) for having bastard children. Many people marry to give their children legitimacy - at least it was important in the past - maybe not so much now?

He has found that women are easy to come by so he doesn't need to marry because he doesn't have to fear being alone. And he is set in his career and has achieved many of his goals in that area so he doesn't have that as an excuse.

I wonder if George ever truly loved anyone. I just watched a film called Barney's Version with Paul Giamatti and in it he falls for a woman that he eventually marries but also eventually hurts so much that it ends their marriage. I wonder if George ever felt that type of passion and wanting? So much so that he would be willing to risk everything to be with that woman. I doubt that.

And on the other hand how could he ever truly know if a woman loved him for just who he is instead of because he's "George Clooney" and what that means overall. i.e. the fame, the fortune, the spectacle of his life.

And by constantly picking younger women he pretty much guarantees that he won't have to marry them. And when the relationship breaks up he can rationalize it with comments like, "Well everyone said she was too young for me." Or, "We really didn't have a lot in common."

IMO George really fears commitment because if he did open his heart to a woman and he did commit and it didn't work out he would then validate his fears that he's really a loser when it comes to women. And even more so (IMO) George is terrified to love deeply because it opens him up to potentially getting hurt.

IMO I think George has a huge capacity to love but the golddiggers who have found their way into his world and into his life have truly ruined it for any woman who would sincerely be interested in HIM not his public/work persona.

And not to say that George isn't as much to blame. His years of drinking and womanizing have made him jaded but as they say "you reap what you sow."

But I guess it's easy to be an armchair commentator about someone else's life. Lately, I've been trying to focus on my own love life and dealing with my own relationship demons - so really - who am I to judge?

So as much as it's fun to speculate - really - none of us will ever live his life so in the long run what does it matter.

One thing I have come to accept is that at this point his choices have not affected his humanitarian work but should they do so - all I can do is say - well I was correct - and nothing changes. I guess I feel it's almost hopeless - no matter what one does these conflicts never end because there is never any compromise. It seems as if it's always all or nothing. At least, I have noticed (and George stated during the Piers Morgan interview) that George seems to have committed to at least one thing - his work with Darfur/Sudan and he has stated he's in for the long haul and for that I thank him.

I think he just likes that his life revolves around him. It’s a selfish way of life but that is what works for him. He doesn’t have to get married – his choice. But there is nothing about the way he discusses his former marriage (him taking the blame for the split, that when having disagreements about boring stuff he would check out mentally of the relationship as he didn’t think it should even be an issue and worth the time) or his current relationships (they all get sick of his work commitments. “If I was them, I’d leave me too”) comments just makes be think he in any way values the idea of being in a loving, supportive committed relationship whatsoever. Married or not, there is nothing about the way he speaks about relationships that implies he is willing to be part of a couple that is equal in all aspects. He gave marriage a shot – sure, he got married and got the piece of paper. But everything he had said about it was that once it stopped being easy, he was not willing to work at the relationship and learn to build a future with another person. He seems to be only interested in being with someone when it is good. When you have a real relationship, it is about the good, the bad and mundane and sticking it out together for the long haul.

He like the meaningless relationships that he has with women who give up their lives to follow him around. That way he is in control; doesn’t have to be vulnerable, show any genuine intimacy or support the needs or wants of another person. He doesn’t have to apologise – he just buys them something and it is never mentioned. I think he sees having to compromise within a relationship (which you have to do for the sake of the relationship) as a compromise of who he is. It has to be his way or no way. And with that mindset, whether he is pro or anti marriage, he is never going to be able to have a genuine relationship with someone who sees him for the man that he actually is – instead of what his occupation is and the balance of his bank account. He got married at 30 and has since pretty much sweared off any relationship with substance since. I don’t think he could actually handle a real relationship. He just doesn’t have the emotional development to genuinely love and care about someone more than himself. And for any woman who wants a real relationship, not just access to a red carpet, cash and his connections, that would be settling for something that is less than she deserves – marriage certificate or not.

I think you've got it, watching. We're here to provide an audience; or approbation if you will. There's nothing wrong with his choice. It suits him.

melbert wrote:Maybe he doesn't want that, or at least hasn't found the right one to be in love with. But, that would be a committment that I don't think he wants at this time. JMHO

Ah, another one who thinks he'll meet the right woman and change his mind.

I don't think this is a phase he's going through. He's been pretty consistent since his marriage failed nearly 20 years ago that a long-term commitment isn't for him. I don't just mean marriage, I mean commitment. He hasn't stayed with anyone (not even his wife) for more than 3 years in his entire life. I don't think he plans to.

LornaDoone and Watching - Bravo!!!

Katie, I really don't think he's going to meet the right woman and change his mind. I guess I should have said "at ANY time". It's obvious to all of us that he doesn't want anything at this moment or in the near future. And with his plans (according to some interviews), he doesn't plan on being in front of the camera forever, but he has a real passion for behind the camera. As long as he has his friends, he doesn't have to commit to any other relationship or a marriage.

melbert wrote: I guess I should have said "at ANY time". It's obvious to all of us that he doesn't want anything at this moment or in the near future.

This is still a contradiction IMO. He either doesn't want a long-term commitment at any time or is open to it but just not in the near future. It can't be both.

I'm just teasing you a little bit here because you've written that his unwillingness to commit is a temporary thing twice.

are you saying his unwillingness is temporary insanity?

My brain is "tender" today! DON'T mess with it! lol

are you in a tender mood today? really?

good for you


anyway
the marriage/health issue is REALLY REALLY IMPORTANT
kids too are another REALLY REALLY IMPORTANT issue

today I thought about a ring

how would look a ring on him? what kind of image make you think at?

I wonder if George ever felt that type of passion and wanting? So much so that he would be willing to risk everything to be with that woman. I doubt that.

not me

but why risking?
no need to risk

or it isn't the right word?

Actually, George's hand look very nice with a ring on THAT finger. Ocean's? Descendents? What else has he worn a ring in?

ER

Don't remember that one It's me. Unless he did in the last season episode. Don't recall seeing one. But, I've been known to be wrong before.

were you wrong, before?
good to hear
yes, it was last season

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

just found a pic of "you'll be mine in 09"

09

Oh, I've been wrong so many times on so many things, I've lost count.

Didn't see his hands in that pic, but if you say he wore a ring, I'm not going to disagree, cuz' I just don't recall.

I didn't lose count

UhOh. So what am I up to, mistake-wise?

dunno
WE WILL SEE
beocause now I have to go to work
so I can't rep you in a better way
have a nice day
see u later
ciao

there is no such thing as a mistake. It's just someone doing it their way instead of the "expected" way. There! Your reprieve!!

I was going to try and post some images from Clooney Unlimited, but every link I went in to, including "see more images of George . . ." and not one photo. I am such a dork!

Thanks Deb! I was feeling a bit paranoid!!

when you think about it, insane is really a good thing. For example, when you are in-sync, you are sync'ed within. So if you are insane, you are sane, within! At least all the people I hear talking at night keep telling me so

they talk to you too!! I thought it was just me...

playfuldeb wrote:when you think about it, insane is really a good thing. For example, when you are in-sync, you are sync'ed within. So if you are insane, you are sane, within! At least all the people I hear talking at night keep telling me so

didn't understand.....

I do so not sure what that says about me.......

people you hear talking at night.... is it all right play?

well
are u awake, in those moments?


anyway to be in-sync is fantastic
in many ways

Maybe it's just an American joke It's Me. Sometimes people will joke about hearing all those voices in their heads when they do something silly (or even stupid). I know that it also involves a very serious psychiatric condition, schizophrenia, but it is not our intention to make fun of anyone with that affliction.

good
bravo

anyway I don't hear voices, I moist of all have sensations

I'm usual (or better I was) to talk to myself, now I do it a very few times
guess why....

no matter what your state of mind, love deeply, laugh often, and be kind always!

no matter what your state of mind?

hmm... do you never feel angry? AND DO YOU NEVER FEEL THE NEED TO TELL PEOPLE YOU ARE IN THAT MOOD (towards them)?

tell me