I’ve always been sort of depressed that Gael Garcia Bernal hasn’t had a bigger career in English-language films. I think he’s hot and interesting and he’s got a great on-screen “presence.” Jon Stewart casted him against type as a Iranian-Canadian journalist in Rosewater, a true story about the detention and torture of Maziar Bahari. Gael sat down with Elle for a profile, and he’s just… interesting. He’s an interesting man. You can read the full piece here, and here are some highlights:
Being raised by his young actress mother: “My parents separated when I was very small. I grew up with my mother, and I was a single child then. She was very independent, doing her things, and having fun alone and working. Knowing that she was going to enjoy her curiosities—some of them with me and some without—it’s drawing a line and saying, ‘I am a person as well. And you are independent. But I will, as a mother, always be there to support you.’”
Doing drag for Pedro Almodóvar’s Bad Education: “Can I show off a little bit? Because it didn’t take that long in the makeup room to look like a woman. I’m very proud of that. I had to shave two times a day. But the rest was really fun. Everyone has a transgender character. Inside and out. And I really enjoyed the woman that came out, actually. I enjoyed my woman character. She was fun and very joyful.”
Massage parlors: “You may not believe me, but I have little knowledge of those types of places. I would get too scared. I don’t know. It’s not morally wrong. I dislike morals a lot, to be honest.”
His partner/baby-mama: “We actually didn’t even get married. We had kids. I mean, you’re more than married, right? In a way, having kids? What’s important is the arrangement. The responsibility. The deal. To do it with the person you’re embarking on [it with]. That’s more important than anything any religion or government would say. But that’s a case-by-case situation. I’m not saying it should be like this. But for us it was. The institution of family is important, definitely. And I enjoy it a lot. More than I thought I would.
Whether he believes in monogamy: “So many things have changed in the last century. The concept of monogamy is an inheritance of a medieval time, when family would carry the tradition of the name and certain privileges. It’s a way of organizing society, perhaps. So all the moral issues that carry with monogamy and the real meaning of where it comes from? It’s questionable nowadays. I can’t say I don’t believe in it, I just think that everyone has their own interpretation.
I feel like Gael is a genuine feminist and he’s not beating us over the head with his enlightment. He’s a man in touch with his feminine side, he prioritizes his children, he tries not to judge other people’s choices and he respects the way his single mother raised him. Elle also asked him what his favorite “chick flick” is and he mentions that he doesn’t really like films that “overtly either very masculine or very feminine” and that he doesn’t even like war movies. He’s artsy and he likes John Cassavetes movies. He’s like James Franco, only Gael is genuine.
Photos courtesy of WENN.
Didn’t he and Natalie Portman have a relationship at one time? They seem well suited, at least from an observer’s perspective.
Im curious,why do you think they seem well suited? 🙂
Highly intelligent, independent thinkers.
And on a totally superficial level, they’re both little and cute.
She’s highly intelligent?
@mimif
I was thinking the same thing. Natalie likes to think she’s intelligent, but I’ve never heard her say anything which wasn’t trite – at best.
And yes, I know she went to Harvard. Doesn’t mean she’s highly intelligent.
Hi! They were a couple a long time ago but Gael cheated on her with Dolores Fonzi, his current -or former- partner. When Natalie found it out, she came to Argentina and made a huge scandal. She even attacked verbally some reporters. Oh, vintage scandals! I love them.
Wow, I’ve been living under a rock because I didn’t know that. I’ve loved him since ‘Y Tu Mamá También’. Also, Diego Luna.
I knew they dated but I had NO idea about the rest of it. What did she do in Argentina?
Here’s the youtube video when she shouted at the reporters. It was back in 2006/2007. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NC3sw1wnmIs&noredirect=1
Here’s another link (but in spanish):
http://www.diario26.com/dolores-fonzi-y-natalie-portman-se-disputan-el-amor-de-gael-17337.html
The thing was that Natalie was worried that Gael was cheating on her with his then costar Dolores Fonzi so she decided to “surprise him ” and she “caught him in act” (never confirmed) with Dolores.
What happens in Argentina…stays in Argentina apparently…
Dolores Fonzi is (was, I think they recently broke up?) much better suited for him; NP’s really respectfull of religion and traditional values , they know its all a sham.
Didn’t he and Fonzi also have a rough patch where he accused her of cheating and demanded a paternity test?
The “cheating” story was never confirmed, there was a lot of gossip in the Argentine press saying they cheated. But as neither have ever commented on it the press had a field day making up stories (think Jolie-Pitts, no one will ever know what state Pitts marriage was in when he got with Jolie so the press is free to make up stories because they don’t sue or comment ) As for the youtube vids Natalie had a camera put in her face when she was trying to fix her relationship with Gael (they’d been on and off for 4 years) of course she looked pissed!
Another thing, Gael was not filming with Dolores at the time (but he did have a relationship with her before he meet Natalie)
@Bridget the story was completely made up (another reason I don’t trust tabloids), he even issued this statement via twitter that can read here http://ohnotheydidnt.livejournal.com/43742064.html
All that being said they’ve split now
Vintage Scandals – would be interesting for Celebitchy to dig up some old Enquirers and such and have a Vintage scandal once in awhile – ie Vintage scandal Wednesdays (I miss hot guy friday – Gael would be on it 🙂
Hmmmm…after reading all of this I think he just rides the fence on monogamy because he nor his partners can seem to keep their pants on. Sounds like self-justification, self-protection.
I loved reading this. He seems incredibly articulate, secure, intelligent… I would love to see him in more things!
I know, me too! I especially liked how he described growing up with his mom.
Such an interesting guy…I loved how almost every comment was prefaced with a *but that’s just my interpretation* or *this isn’t for everybody*. He seems to have a lot of self-awareness, which is incredibly refreshing in the celeb world.
Like Kaiser, I lament the fact that he hasn’t had more of a career in US films. He really does have that it factor.
+1
He isn’t preachy about it and he doesn’t sound like the usual douchebage male who tries to justify cheating by calling it “natural for animals”. Also like that he is in touch with his fake side and isn’t embarrassed to say he liked being in drag.
His American career dies in 2003 when he presented at the Oscars, was asked not to comment on Irak, but did so anyway. He was blacklisted ever sense. He’s a cutie and I’m glad he’s done talking about all the left wing Southamerican politics.
If anyone’s career was going to be killed for making an anti-Iraq statement at the 2003 Oscars it would have been Michael Moore, and that didn’t happen. Bernal’s resume is littered with prestigious international work with highly respected directors interspersed with occasional mediocre American movies. Some actors just shine better in their native language (see Cruz, Penelope).
Like anyone in HW would blackball someone over Iraq, that just would not happen, HW leans left and Georgie never had too many fans out here over his trumped up “war”.
Don’t think the Oscars killed his American career. I just don’t think Hollywood knew what to do with him. Too political, too unwilling to play the Latin lover stereotype and too pretty to be a full time character actor – also there really is a lack of rolls for Latin actors in the US. He has basically said he would rather do a brilliant film in Latin America and get paid less, than spend all the money he has earned buying a house in LA trying to make it in America.
He’s still doing OK thou, His reviews for his performance in Rosewater have been great , he’s got a touring documentary festival coming to California and his production company Canana is very successful in Mexico (they’d just sign a deal with Amblin Entertainment to produce an American version of one of their tv shows for A&E )
I really enjoy him in everything I’ve seen him in.
Y Tu Mama Tambien
Great movie, he was great in it, but Maribel Verdu was the standout.
El Crimen Del Padre Amaro. Awsome movie. He was so good in it.
+1
Mammoth was so good.
Hmmmmm, he sounds more like a douche bag to me.
word.
Medieval time? What is he talking about? People in medieval time cheated all the time, at least the men. Ridiculous.
Monogamy at its inception was an incredibly patriarchal concept. It—-eh,I’m just going to copy and paste because I’m tired.
“First, monogamous marriage ensures that property/wealth is passed down to biologically related offspring. Second, monogamous marriage traps women in a life of unpaid domestic and childrearing labour. The monogamous family is based on the supremacy of the man and its main purpose is to produce children of undeniable paternity. (Male) children later inherit their father’s property as his ‘natural’ heirs. Thus, monogamy generally meant that women were sexually faithful while men were still free to have extramarital sex. The idea of love as an aspect of marriage arose in late 18th and early 19th centuries. Romanticism emphasized intuition, imagination and feeling and dispelled traditional economic and family reasons. Nevertheless, the main reason has remained the idea of passing on property to the male line of offspring. Within paternal societies, women of all social classes had no right to choose or reject a groom. With marriage the husband gained legal power over his wife and her property. ”
http://www.taeterinnen.org/en/02_shorthistory.html
I think he meant to say the concept of MARRIAGE is an inheritance of a medieval time, due to passing on the family name. Monogamy was not a thing in medieval times, men had mistresses left and right. Monogamy is more a recent concept.
Tapioca–you’re speaking of SEXUAL monogamy. What people aren’t understanding is that there are different types of monogamy.
Sexual monogamy is two people who exclusively have sex ONLY with each other. Marital monogamy refers to marriages of only two people. Social monogamy refers to two partners living together, having sex with each other, and cooperating in acquiring basic resources such as shelter, food, and money. Social and marital monogamy don’t preclude sex with other people–and I mean that ONLY in a technical sense. Most of us would assume that if we are married to someone, we are only having sex with that person and vice versa.
I think the fact that English is his second language is hurting him a bit here because he doesn’t realize that Americans define monogamy as an exclusive sexual and emotional relationship with one person. That’s not what monogamy is, but that’s how it’s been represented in our society for a century now.
At least in paper it is a thing from medieval times. Men then, as it is so today aswell, cheated but were not supposed to, they were to marry and create a family and only one family. Of course men cheated but that was not the societal ideal.
Sorry I meant TC..as I said, I have a headache 🙂
Okay, I try to get it right in english:
Monogamy in our time means that you’re faithful to one person, right? That’s the concept we today understand as monogamy. In medieval times there was no such thing. People had other partners, especially men.
Plus I don’t think that Bernal means the original meaning of the word monogamy when he talks about it. He wants to express that he doesn’t believe in sharing your life with just one person and that you can love more than one person. I’m totally fine with that. My point is that his version of monogamy doesn’t apply to medieval time.
OKitten – good comment on the medieval origin of monogamous marriage. Explains the source of slut shaming as well. The married woman had to be sexually monogamous to maintain her status. The married man stepped out with who then? Low status women. So you’ve got a high status promiscuous male. I never understood before why men got a pass.
Monogamy is not a ‘medieval’ concept nor a ‘modern’ concept, nor is ‘marriage’ a recent or medieval concept. Monogamy and marriage have been around for millenia (including the medieval ages – if what you mean by that is the period of time marked in western Europe from the fall of the Roman Empire to the emergence of the Italian Renaissance), and across numerous other societies around the globe. A large part of its importance has been protecting women from total abandonment by men, and protecting children. It may seem a moot point for our wealthy demographic in our corner of the globe, but once upon a time monogamy was seen as enormously beneficial for women.
As long as it has existed as a notion, people have failed to live up to it – monogamy is never complete and total in any society; most ideas and concepts are not. That does not mean the notion did not exist, and it does not even mean the majority failed to live up to the ideal. It just means there was a common, agreed upon standard, and some people fell short. I have no issue with people who are not monogamous. I do have an issue with misrepresenting an entire aspect of human history, and seeing it only through a very shallow, narrow lens: skimming Wikipedia entries, or taking blog posts that prove what they want, and failing to read deeper into the subject. The ill-informed attacks on monogamy by people who either can’t live up to it, or people who have the wealth to not need the strength of the ideal to help support them, has hurt lower-class women more than anyone else, causing skyrocketing numbers of single mothers – which hurts the children too. Funny, that.
I heard all the reasons monogamy was anti-woman trotted out when I was five, and then for twenty more years by my feminist-101 mother (I mean, feminist: my liberal schoolmates thought my mother was crazy, though now they all repeat on social media what was old hat to anyone paying attention decades ago). Of course, she’s happily married and benefits from having a two-income household and was thus able to afford to send her daughter to college. Where I learned what actually happened in the middle ages, and not what people think when they shout “medieval” as an insult. Bernal is more thoughtful than your average actor, but he’s not a scholar. Of course, he knows that, and I’m sure he’s a fine guy to have a cup of tea with.
@ Annie-I NEVER said monogamy was anti-woman nor was I in any capacity attacking monogamy as a concept and I’m not sure how you got that out of my post. I’m a product of parents who have been married for 47 years so obviously I’ve greatly benefited from it.
That being said, I think the incessant romanticizing of a concept that started off as more of a practical one is a valid point. It doesn’t mean that I can’t respect and appreciate monogamy and it’s evolution.
In regards to single mothers, I’m not sure where you get the idea that single parenting automatically “hurts children”, nor do I understand how “ill-informed attacks on monogamy” have anything to do with a woman raising a child on her own. That’s an oversimplification if I’ve ever heard one, not to mention rather narrow-minded.
“A large part of its importance has been protecting women from total abandonment by men, and protecting children. ”
I never said this wasn’t the case, but it doesn’t change the fact that a byproduct of that stability was enabling men to focus their efforts towards furthering society, thus leaving women in a role that was incredibly limited. While women tended to the children, men were able to secure prominent and powerful positions in society. That’s not an indictment of monogamy nor is it a minimization of the importance of motherhood. It’s simply fact and it’s a flip-side of monogamy that no one considers when we’re waxing poetic about “two beings being drawn to each other out of passion, love, loneliness, the sheer human need to connect”, etc etc.
Great post, Annie!
@Annie — beautifully and thoughtfully stated and dead-on accurate.
As a woman who was raised in a single-parent home (not by mother’s choice), both she and I would say that it is unequivocally better for children, both financially and emotionally, to have an intact family structure. I also find it interesting that people who had the good fortune to grow up in such families cast dispersions on those of us who actually had to live with the financial and emotional voids and say so. I feel that statements like “monogamy is antiquated” and such forth are usually perpetuated either by people who want to illustrate how “progressive” they are or those who wish to not make commitments to families they have already begun. Monogamy may not be “natural,” but it can be a choice that many people do successfully make when they have children and get married to like-minded people they love. Most humans do long for a life partner. Sometimes we may want to have sex with other people, but it isn’t worth the emotional toll on the relationship that is dear to us. That is being mature and realistic.
Yup! In other words, he wants carte-blanche to screw around on his partner.
I think so too. At least his comments on monogamy. Maybe it’s my understanding of English (a second language for me) but it reads to me as an (possible) excuse for cheating.
Agree. He’s not just satisfied with screwing around – he wants you to feel intellectually backward if you don’t like it.
WORD.
+1
Exactly, from my interpretation of his words, it almost seems as if he’s arguing that he’s beyond morality.
It could be a language thing, but I don’t quite understand the moral question he is trying (or trying not) to form. I mean, if people chose to have an open relationship, no problem. I also don’t think that monogamy is for everyone. However, when people tend to make these kinds of statements, they are usually trying to justify cheating. Remember Ethan Hawke’s interviews over the past couple of years? This excerpt smacks of the same sentiment.
YUP.
Except that, if both parties in the relationship are of the same mind, it’s not “cheating.” Just because people external of the relationship may define it as such by their own construct of whatever they think that means, doesn’t make it so.
I think he’s very cute, physically. I believe in monogamy, for me. I respect that it’s not for everyone, and as long as you say so upfront, that’s fine, too. I just don’t share.
I agree with what you say and whatever works for them, but often wonder when a GGB or Ethan Hawke says they don’t believe in monogamy, whether that just applies to them, or to their partner equally?
Personally, I like the idea of a best friend for life and a genital area free from venereal disease, “out-dated” or not!
Guys…he never said he didn’t believe in monogamy. Never said that. He simply pointed out that monogamy was originally not this idealistic thing that modern Americans view it to be.
During the Roman Empire and in medieval Christendom, marriage was monogamous but mating was often polygynous. In other words, a lord would have one wife to perform the “wifely duties” and a bunch of sidepieces for his own pleasure. As I posted above, monogamy didn’t start to become a romantic notion until the late 18th century.
Anyway, he said “I can’t say I don’t believe in monogamy.” Can’t. Say. I. Don’t.
I think he was simply saying that it doesn’t mean as much as people thinks that it does, that you can be faithful without it being looked at as being BOUND to someone like in the medieval days.
I just wish people would read the interviews instead of just the header if you’re going to comment. It frustrates me to no end that this guy is here bringing up something interestiong and insightful and everyone is screaming “CHEATER!!!” Sigh.
Monogamy isn’t something necessarily derived from society. Like I said below, he is using monogamy in place of marriage, or so it seems. Marriage is a legally binding institution. Monogamy, on the other hand, has obvious advantages in evolution, as the offspring have a better chance of survival with two guardians. It also ensures the likelihood of passing on genes from those 2 creatures who do not have to seek out new mates over the course of different seasons. There are animals who are more or less monogamous. In nature, I would guess it’s a toss up as to what is more effective in propagating the species; seed spread everywhere, or a very directed commitment to this goal by the same 2 individuals. Probably the ‘more, the better’ evolutionary track mostly wins out because individual couples could be infertile, one could die, and so on.
OKitten
I did read the interview. I never said he was a cheater. I simply said, since we are discussing monogamy, and people’s different opinions about monogamy, mine is that I believe in it, but it’s fine if other people don’t as long as they’re upfront. Tapioca said pretty much the same thing. I’m not sure why you’re yelling at us.
Thank you! Marriage and monogamy often get intertwined now in our minds but monogamy is a product of evolution. There is evidence that Neanderthals practiced monogamy. When I hear people use the argument that we are one of the only species that practices monogamy so ie. it’s not natural. It is not only natural but a necessary part of our evolution, with our brain size, our ability for intelligent thought, monogamy allowed for or species to build civilizations and develop trades (ie. butchers, bakers, etc….) So maybe there is a reason we are one of the only species. We are also one of the only species that participates in art for the sake of art, philosophy for the sake of philosophy.
Marriage, on the other hand, is patriarchal and passed down because of land ownership to the first born male. I feel like more and more young adults now are opting out marriage. Me, well, my divorce was final last monday so I’m opting out as well. 🙂
I apologize, GNAT. I’m not yelling at anyone. I guess I should have made my comment a stand-alone one instead of replying, because it was meant as a general statement about most of the comments on this board, not a personal attack. I’m sorry if it came across as aggressive or rude.
All I meant was that what he’s talking about is a fascinating critique of monogamy and it’s getting lost here. Monogamy was an essential part of developing societies as it enabled wealthy men to focus their energies towards furthering a successful society, often times at the expense of women’s freedom.
Also, modern-day monogamy is a wonderful thing, but mainly due to the furthering of women’s rights. It wasn’t always that way.
Animals have a sense of aesthetics. You may not want to call it art, but if you have ever looked at the spectacular placement and arrangement of colors and objects before certain bird’s nests, you will see that in action.
@Kiddo
I think some evolutionary scientists have made a case that the best possible scenario is a form of ‘serial monogamy’, whereby the couple stay together as long as it takes for their children to be independent – which in the prehistoric era would be as soon as they could feed themselves, ie no more than about 7 years old – and then go their separate ways to mate with different people.
But really, the whole discussion is moot imho. Very little of what we do is ‘natural’ and if we were all ‘natural’, we’d be dead by 35. Basically, if you’re happy with monogamy, go for it, if you’re not, that’s fine too, just don’t make any claims to the contrary, or don’t demand that your partner be faithful while you don’t have to.
@Etheldreda, you are. the end. 🙂
Why do other people’s comments bother you?
Not being rude, I’m just asking
@ Chanelle-You’re not rude and you’re right that other people’s comments shouldn’t bother me. If I feel passionately about something I have tendency to get overinvested. But you’re right..everyone has a right to have an opinion and I should relax or “take a chill pill” as Kiddo says.
IMH – divorces are sooo difficult. Bright Blessings!
I LOVE what he said about his mum. It almost made me tear up, actually. Me, cynical old Sixer! I hope the Sixlets say something similar about me some day (and about Mr Sixer, too).
We should use the word curiosities a lot more.
Ah, Sixer, you are a sweetie!
On edit: I asked you about your opinion on the Scottish vote and then went over and saw what you were thinking on the QE post.
Very interesting!
I try!
Um… had I been a Scot, I’d have voted YES. I did buy many of the arguments (currency, EU, etc) made by the NO side, but I would have felt that starting anew stood the best chance of a better society. As an English person, wondering what would have been best for ME, I was torn. Would an independent Scotland have scuppered the chances for a better England or motivated us to achieve it? I really don’t know. This morning, I’m still not sure if I’m relieved or disappointed.
You edited as I typed!
Thanks for commenting on this. I didn’t know anything about this until yesterday. I will have to read up on it.
There’s quite a lot of chat about it on today’s Royal post here, Kiddo. Whichever side you were on, one thing is certain: it’s been the best expression of democracy in the UK in many years.
I was very excited about the polling yesterday and just a wee disappointed in the results (enjoyed reading your comments, Sixer). But yay for democracy and no comment on the monogamy stuff. I’m like a bird, I’ll only fly awayayay (that was for you blue marie, wherever you are).
At least he is upfront about the fact that you shouldn’t expect him to be faithful to you. He knows he can’t honor marriage vows so he wont do it. I can respect that.
I don’t care where the concept of monogamy came from, for me it’s about a bond of trust and an agreed upon set of rules for the relationship. If you agreed to those rules and created that bond, and then you break those rules/that bond, that is not okay.
He can do whatever he wants in his relationship, I just hope he laid that out ahead of time and homegirl knew what she was getting into.
That’s the thing, it’s all about how two people define their relationship. If they define it as monogamous and one person breaks that, then it is not okay. If they define it as whatever, then I guess anything goes.
I agree with you. (Though personally, I’m tired of the old “monogamy isn’t natural” line. Neither is air-conditioning, cars, or pants, and everyone seems to have embraced those just fine!)
If I’m honest, I HATE pants. First thing I do when I get home from work is LOSE THE PANTS. Life is just better without them. I know I can’t be the only one.
You both cracked me up!
I’ve enjoyed watching him in the few films of seen. It doesn’t make any difference to me if a film is English-language or not.
First I think he is using the words monogamy and marriage interchangeably. Second, marriage existed in Roman times. I guess he is trying to be dramatic using ‘Medieval times’, since it often conjures up some negative imagery. “I’m gonna get Medieval on your ass”, for example. Without judgement, I’d say that his early experience with a single mother contributed to this framework of monogamy/marriage being outdated, not particularly useful and unnecessary.
@Kiddo, I had a very similar experience as Gael describes with his mother and I feel precisely the same way he does about marriage and monogamy. My sons father and I got engaged 8 years ago, I squelched the whole thing about 4 years later and we have a baby that is one. I just realized as I got older that it was unimportant to me. To me it feels so binding and stifling. My partner very much believes in monogamy, so we practice it because it is important to him.
I’m not sure if he meant it metaphorically or if he was actually referring to the Middle Ages but to be fair, the concept of marriage may have existed in Roman times, the Middle Ages brought a whole new understanding of it when the church took over the marriage “business”. Aside from the fact that back then, nobody batted an eye when men played by their own rules, it is pretty much still that concept we have today. Much later the idea of a love marriage was introduced and – in my opinion – kinda screwed us.
He’s very careful in his wording and makes it clear that these are his personal opinions, based on his experiences and all of what he said never applies or should apply to everyone. Which is why I can’t really disagree with anything he says.
Marriage has existed as a contract of heirs and rights to family and property. Monogamy is a different concept. You can be married and not monogamous. You can be monogamous and not married. Animals can be monogamous, but not be concerned about whether the caaw-caaw-caaw clan is recognized on a legal basis.
I was making that distinction. As to the single mother, I made no judgement, I was only pointing out that familiar patterns can be imprinted on one as normalcy.
Well, I wasn’t really disagreeing with you except it’s not clear whether he makes the distinction between marriage and monogamy or if it’s all the same to him.
They are two very different things, even though he is using them interchangeably.
He was speaking of monogamy in historical terms. Before the inception of monogamy, Hebrew patriarchs and early Greek civilizations often took multiple wives. Monogamy was established in the legal codes of Greece and Rome and reinforced by the Catholic Church in the Middle Ages but other cultures like Islam still refused to acknowledge it.
Important to note that you can also be “married” and have more than one wife.
What you’re talking about is the difference between social monogamy and marital monogamy.
“Marital monogamy refers to marriages of only two people.
Social monogamy refers to two partners living together, having sex with each other, and cooperating in acquiring basic resources such as shelter, food, and money.”
When people didn’t have the money needed for a marriage ceremony, they often lived in a monogamous situation, with one partner, without the marriage certificate. Prior to that, a man might have several women living under his roof, even if they were not married by ceremony.
In other words, he’s right.
TheOriginalKitten, monogamy is not the same as marriage. No one established it necessarily. Nature had monogamous examples already. Monogamy has nothing to do with passing on a family name, as he describes in the article. You can pass on the family name through multiple wives.
Kiddo, never in my comment did I conflate monogamy and marriage. Socially-imposed monogamy refers to monogamy in economically advanced societies. You’re speaking in terms of biology, but I’m speaking in terms of human anthropology. Two different things.
“The concept of monogamy is an inheritance of a medieval time, when family would carry the tradition of the name and certain privileges” was his statement.
He, is in fact, speaking of marriage and you are also speaking about monogamous marriage. These are legal/religious constructs about financial inheritance and obligations as well as namesakes. You even mentioned that in your quote: “Marital monogamy refers to marriages of only two people.
Social monogamy refers to two partners living together, having sex with each other, and cooperating in acquiring basic resources such as shelter, food, and money.”
Monogamy is a distinctly separate thing from marriage. Maybe he forgot to add marriage to his statements.
Or perhaps he should have specified marital monogamy, Kiddo. It still doesn’t make him wrong. If he was speaking of socially imposed monogamy, it coincided with the inception of marriage and the two were very much intertwined in a historical sense. In fact, considering English isn’t his first language, I think he did a pretty good job of explaining himself.
Regardless, the semantical argument that’s happening here is much less interesting than the myriad of topics that his statements bring up.
“Socially imposed monogamy, therefore, emerged in the West as a reciprocal arrangement in which elite males allowed lower-ranking males to marry, in exchange for their military service and tax contributions.”
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/darwin-eternity/201109/why-we-think-monogamy-is-normal
Thanks for your input on this thread TOK. While I’ve often thought about the relationship between patriarchy and the institution of marriage, I had not really considered the different types of monogamy and how they tie into marriage, so you’ve definitely given me food for thought.
Thank you, Gretchen! You make me feel much better about getting so….carried away 😉
@Kiddo, I was actually reaffirming your thought that his background with his mother may be why he feels that way. I didn’t take it as judgmental at all, rather I think it is an accurate assessment.
Sorry elo. I misunderstood.
No worries, I think I could have worded it better. I sound defensive in my response. I think that witnessing your parents relationships really shape your understanding of what romantic relationships and friendships should be. As I grew up with a mother who seemingly placed little importance on romance but always had friends over, I’ve found as an adult, I am a lot like that myself. My mate and I have had to compromise many a time as he grew up in a perfectly nuclear family.
Just because people didn’t divorce in medieval times doesn’t mean they were monogamous. Since marriages were mostly arranged during this time period, it was common to have affairs as no one expected to be fulfilled by their partner. Marriages were mostly for political and financial reasons.
Women also never chose their marital partners, but men had options.
Especially if they were rich men. Then they had a lot of options. Much like today.
thats true. personally i dont see it as cheating when someone in those times had outside lovers. i mean it was a business contract and not love. most proably only had as much sex to create and heir and a spare and than lived seperate lives. if i was in love a guy and then had to marry someone else who probably also had another woman in his heart i would too sleep with the guy i love and not have a problem with my “husband” being with his love.
being able to marry someone you love is such a fantastic progress.
i find cheating nowadays way worse, not only because there are more STIs and people are way more educated about them, but also because you can choose and have so much freedom and people still cant get enough and need to screw over a person that trusted them with their heart and health.
It’s partly because some people love the buzz of new sex.
ITA, Maria.
Not to mention the fact that back then a lot of marriages were arranged, with the woman having ZERO input as to who she ended up with.
I think that his not being a bigger star is a blessing. He gets steady jobs not only Stateside but also in other parts of the world. His integrity is intact. Years after Y tu Mama, he’s still here.
May I just be shallow for a moment and comment on his hair? It looks like mine did when I was going through chemo, right before it fell out. Does his hair always look like that? He either needs a new hair stylist or he needs to get healthy.
Thank God someone else commented on this! I got excited about a GGB thread, then I saw the pics and my first thought was: Holy Hell, that’s the either the strangest rug or the oddest balding pattern (left side only) I’ve ever seen. And it appears that it wasn’t just an unfortunate one-time thing–his hair is awful in all the photos.
THANK YOU
all i can think about is how wretched his hair is. is it so hard to be attractive that you had to put this on your head to balance it out?
what annoys me way more is this: “I dislike morals a lot, to be honest” what does that even mean? that he only does what he wants and does not care about others? cheating, lying, killing for personal gain? if you dislike morals you must be a one of a kind douchebag.
the “massage” parlors are a good example of someone being moral or immoral. you can never know how these women got into that job. a moral person wouldnt go there and likely exploit others. if you dislike morals i guess its ok…
Eh, I took that as something that got lost in translation a bit — in context it seems like he’s talking about society’s conventions more than morals.
Exactly, and he’s from Mexico, a country deeply catholic with some very patriarchal social conventions and very rooted machism, so I can understand what he means.
I lived in Mexico many years ago when “morals” for women and men were completely different. It was “immoral” for women to go into a bar. It was “immoral” for women to wear shorts or jeans in public. It was “immoral” for a woman to be out alone at night. For men it wasn’t immoral to father children out of wedlock, even though they were married. For men it wasn’t immoral for them to be out all night partying whilst wifey and kiddies were at home. So I think he’s referring to the double standard of morals that differ so drastically between men and women, most of which are really quite silly when you think about it, not morals around cheating or killing.
It is his life. But I hope he sets the rules before he gets with a partner. Because if he doesn’t do it and later on makes a habit of cheating his partner and declares that he doesn’t believe in monogamy than he is an asshole. Not because he doesn’t ‘do’ monogamy but because he is dishonest. For myself, I am not really all that invested in monogamy either. But I am not a romantic though. Candle-lit hotel rooms and flowers every week make me feel irritated rather than happy.
So funny he is talking about monogamy…. According to Argentinian media, Dolores and Gael split a couple of months ago. Infidelity issues? Maybe Dolores could handle his wandering d*ng no more.
Sorry , he ” sounds” intelligent to certain segment of people .. But really he just blathering bullshit …
Medieval times was just one part of English history , marriage was around centuries before from Roman times and even further in other cultures on the other side of the world.
He’s confusing marriage with monogamy . Marriage is a institution that was invented for political , culture , the state and religions .. while monogamy is a concept invented because of humans need for love and connection with another human and found through centuries of evolution that sex binds a ” relationship ” and is enduring, lasting powerful etc … bond when it’s limited to 2 people …..
I agree, said so above.
I don’t know if I thought he sounded intelligent necessarily. I just found his quirkiness entertaining and kind of refreshing.
Too be fair English is not his first language
Very intelligent and insightful answers, I applaud him for his candor.
Monogamy is not very male-compatible. Most men are monogamous, because they have no other options. They do not lead lives that will allow the occasional fling. But if they are tall, attractive and/or wealthy, most will go out and have casual sex with other women. Which doesn’t mean anything really, it is just sex. But women are too sensitive about this subject. When these men get caught, they will blame it on ‘sex addiction’ – some ‘disease’ surely a very well-paid lawyer came up with to spare his obscenely wealthy playboy of a client from a hefty divorce settlement.
This guy is quite talented. His beauty has definitely faded now, but I am sure he is still an asset to any film he is a part of.
Women, statistically, are nearly equally non-monogamous, and cheat on partners. Are you saying that men in those situations are not sensitive about this? I would seriously beg to differ. Please don’t start off with a hypothesis, that can’t be proven, that men are more evolved on this front, because they are not.
Being in a relationship does not mean you stop being attracted to other people. The cheating part comes into play if you decide to act on it behind your partner’s back.’ Cheating’ and not being monogamous are different and every men and women should recognize it to built a healthy relationship with particular someone. And I really do wonder why you think it is harder for men. And please don’t go with the “because men need to spread their sperms” bullshit
”But if they are tall, attractive and/or wealthy, most will go out and have casual sex with other women.”
And of course many of these women will be married or in ostensibly ‘monogamous’ relationships, so they too are cheating. It’s difficult for men to cheat unless they have a woman to cheat with, isn’t it?
Statistics on such matters are highly unreliable, partly because men tend to exaggerate and women tend to understate. But while male infidelity is tolerated – in some quarters even celebrated – that is not in itself reason to believe that women don’t also cheat. They do, they just tend to be a bit more discreet about it.
Al, what an incredibly sexist viewpoint, insulting to both men and women. All men are not the same. All women are not the same. Men are not helpless animals who would feed their overwhelming lust if only they could, if only they were “tall, attractive or wealthy,” but remain faithful only if they are short, ugly and poor. Some men actually choose to be monogamous because they want to. And women are unfaithful as often as men. Some women choose to be monogamous, some do not. If any person is in a monogamous relationship, and their partner cheats, they are not being “oversensitive” if they object.
You know, upon reflection, you must be trolling. No one is this off base.
I agree with your analysis.
You nailed it GNAT!
At least Al is an equal discriminator.
Al, people are just complicated. It has less to do with gender and more to do with whether or not someone is selfish and lack empathy. Gender is a lot less concrete.
We all have preconceived ideas. Hopefully we allow our notions to be challenged so we can evolve and grow as a person.
Hmmm, i have a problem with his “Everyone has a transgender character inside of them” line. It trivialises transgenderism as something that can be turned on and off whenever one wants to when the reality is much different. Transgendered people face a lot of stigma for being transgendered and they don’t have the comfort of “taking off the costume” like Gael does at the end of the day.
Wow…that is a really good point.
They already split. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2761696/Gael-Garcia-Bernal-splits-long-term-love-Dolores-Fonzi-reveals-NEVER-married.html
As I said before, La Dolores got sick of his wandering d*ng.
If you don’t believe in monogamy why would you be in a relationship? That is the idea of a relationship. Does he mean then that even in a relationship he gets around? Just getting back to his animal instincts I guess – being like cats in an alley – just do whoever is around. Well good for him I guess.
Men who say that monogamy is medieval usually say it to justify their cheating. He reminds me of Ethan Hawke.
My girl friend dated and had children with a guy like this and one day the guy wanted to be free and left. Needless to say,he left with his assets and trying to get the appropriate level of support was next to impossible.
He’s hot hot hot because he’s so smart and respectful. Boy would I love a romantic weekend with him in Italy or Paris mmmmm…… My lil fantasy. He could talk about art, architecture, history and customs and I would just listen and swoon. Ahhhh
He needs to study some more social history…..
Marriage is a medieval /early age concept.
Monogamy is a modern concept.
Monogamous marriage is DEFINITELY a modern concept.
I honestly don’t know who this guy is…I’ve probably seen him in stuff but he just didn’t stick as memorable.
If he and his partner are truly on the same page regarding monogamy then awesome. As long as everyone is on the same page and agreed to terms then it’s all good.
As an aside regarding monogamy: The belief that monogamy is out of date doesn’t bother me. It does bother me when people use “we are animals and are designed to blindly f-k anything if the mood strikes” as a way to justify being an @$$hole.
If you partner with someone then you both need to know and agree to the rules. If you’re playing by your own shifting rules based on whatever the heck you want in that moment then you are just a selfish jerk who is just plain old untrustworthy. I wouldn’t put money on you being a great person who enriches the lives of those around you.
Damn fine actor. Handsome. Charming. Not particularly well versed on Medieval European history. Can’t win ’em all.
I found this debate so interesting that I did a little bit of research with Wiki, and found this most interesting article: http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_evolution/2012/10/are_humans_monogamous_or_polygamous_the_evolution_of_human_mating_strategies_.html
Anyway, There is so much information that I couldn’t post it here, but the facts that I found interesting for a short comment (?) would be that polyamory ( which is the term for what Gael is speaking) is about trust, loyalty, and the negotiation of boundaries, as well as a rejection of jealousy, possessiveness & cultural standards – that is, having the choice of loving more than one; and includes the conceptions about the duration of the relationship. Jealousy is seen as insecurity. A point that I found clever in the debate is the comparison of polyamory, to parents who can love more than one child. (So therefore humans can love other lovers…).
The Greco-Roman practice looked down on formal concubines, but slaves of either sex were fair game. Another comparison that competes with the ideas about monogamy, is made with gorillas, where the alpha male gets all of the sex, or chimpanzees who compete for multiple partners. I’ve had a man say he they desired multiple partners, because of the behavior bonobos display (primates that just can’t get enough of doing it). Scientists who study anthropological evolution say that hominids began the great transition to monogamy 4.4 million years ago when the wooing, was the bring back the bacon. It was male on male competition (like most species). So, there was a shift in female preference for mates that could offer food and childcare. Culture came later to augment what was already in place. The developing world was one where culture was able to develop due to marriage that secures continual access to a female. Then there were legal changes to marriage which includes all that women dislike; like being seen as property along with their children, the prohibition of their right to own property, and not having the right to represent themselves legally. (Now why did that happen – because men were stronger?!)
In cultures where men are unable to find partners, like in China, where unmarried men doubled in 1889-2004, crime also doubled. However, the debate has gone on for centuries, and by some of our greatest philosophers. It was in the Middle Ages that marriage was hijacked by the church (therefore culture), as registering marriages was required by the Catholic church.
I believe along with others, that marriage or the choice for polyandry, is really a sort of Rorschach test for people who are examining it.
Nice post Wolfie.
Whoops! – typo. China and birth control issues actually occurred between l989-2004.
Thanks, Kiddo (smiles)
I find it a blessing that he doesn’t have a bigger career in English speaking films. And if he’s smart, he ought to feel that way too, because too often non US actors, especially those for whom english is a second language end up doing the cliched foreigner part in non very bright scripts.
Besides, they usually give more subtle and nuanced performance in their native language.
So I think his career is pretty good the way it is.
Isn’t there a saying like “it’s ok to read the menu but you don’t eat everything on it?”
LMAO at the hair comments. Looks like somebody’s dead cat!
IN my opinion, if you’re looking you might as well be touching.
This is why I’m sing;e. WHen my ex checked out other women, I still felt betrayed.
I remember telling my father to stop “leering” at other women on the beach. I told him that it was very embarrassing to my mother and me (I was 13 and on the way to becoming a woman). I told him if he wanted to leer, then please do it when he is not with us.
Wow that seems quite harsh. If my husband looks occasionally that’s fine by me because I do it too. We’re all only human.
That said there’s a difference between a look and a leer and I wouldn’t tolerate the latter.
@ Ange – I guess it does sound harsh to other people, but it might as well be the same thing. What’s stopping him? Me? I’m a burden, obviously.
Where’s the limit? When scoping out other women becomes frequenting strip clubs? When frequenting strip clubs turns into p-rn addiction? When p-rn addiction becomes cybersex? When he starts making active efforts to cheat on you with some chick he met on Fetlife?
It starts out subconscious and then it gradually grows into something more hurtful. I realize that I sound extreme, but I don’t trust men. I can’t control who I love, but I can keep him from betraying me by refusing a relationship.
@Wolfpup:
That sounds like it was extremely uncomfortable for you, especially at such a confusing age to begin with.
My father is not the leering type, nor does he make gross comments about attractive women, but he’s actually the opposite. He’s uncomfortable with the comments his co-workers make about women. Some men just don’t outgrow that sort of behavior, it seems. One of my friends from work is an older man in probably his fifties, and occasionally he makes remarks about other women that make me uncomfortable too.
Monogamy Shmonogamy! who cares, he’s so cute, I’m not attracted to short men but this guy has something, he has IT. He’s is terribly sexy and part of that is because he does come off as having an arch sense of humor and intelligence. Winning combo for me. And I like him in movies.
Totally not buying this. Every Latino guy I’ve known — and I’ve known a lot — tells a completely different story when it comes to women and monogamy. Machismo is alive and well.
I do not see what the hype is about here…
Wealth and power is what is at the bottom of this, like most injustices.
He’s a”feminist” too, isn’t he?
Pig in knight’s armor.
I’m anti-relationship, not because *I* can’t be monogamous; I’m a very devoted partner. Unfortunately, few seem to respect and live up to the same standard of loyalty I set for myself. It’s very easy to make me feel betrayed.
I do think the idea of having a best friend for life, who I can be physically intimate with is very appealing, but that doesn’t mean I want a conventional relationship.
Sorry, he doesn’t sound intelligent to me. He sounds like a person who’s trying to sound intelligent. “I don’t like morals” – who says that? Morality is simply one’s own compass for finding right and wrong according to one’s own conscience. Obviously, he’s conflating morals with religion – which is an ignorant thing to do – because it implies that atheists have no morals and I assure you they would beg to differ. Between that comment and the idiotic monogamy-is-medieval comment, what I see is an immature, self-absorbed hedonist who wants to do whatever he wants without the burden of dealing with his conscience. It’s self-absolution.
I agree.
IMO he and his ex, Natalie Portman try very hard to come off as these oh so intelligent individuals.
He’s good looking. Very easy on the eye and probably a decent actor to but that’s as far as it goes for me. PERIOD.
I have friends, a married couple, who aren’t monogamous, and it works beautifully for them. (It’s not common knowledge; only a few of their closest friends know.) They’re happy as can be and it doesn’t cause any drama in their lives because the “rules” are very clear and they are both very honest with each other about the goings-on in their lives.
Unconventional? Oh yes. For everyone? Oh definitely not. But I guess occasionally, this sort of thing actually works.
I just think it would be WAY too awkward to have that kind of chat with my husband. “Hey, you should have seen the guy I screwed last night! He had a HUGE member, and he loved Stephen Fry!” “Oh, I love Stephen Fry, too! Bring him over tonight for a couple brews before you shag him again!” SOOOOOOOOOOO not awesome.
This guy sounds like a loser. Just because he can’t keep it in his pants. He’s incredibly short too – like 5 ft 7. He’s lucky he can get anyone.
marriage is a joke today.