your example is really unfortunate and confuses the issue you're trying to advance.

it sound's like you're accusing kim of withholding sex-- and that sends people on a garden path of silly speculation and unnecessary refutations. it's a misleading example that pushes too many buttons and based on terrible assumptions.

the real serious question posed by your earlier post is-- in the event of a sentimental attachment to a third party (regardless of cause, who gives a shit)-- should a marriage be broken?

when you don't have kids, it's easy to confess and say it's over-- it's only marginally harder than breaking up with a boyfriend or girlfriend. but if you have children and a family business, then there are other issues at play, and it's not so cut and dry-- "honesty" can bring ruination for all involved.

people from certain backgrounds will demand "honesty first"-- that's generally what the american populace demands of their celebrities and politicians. hence the scandal. people from other backgrounds might choose to keep a lover secret and protect the family from destruction. it really depends on many things, and the answer is not always as clear as absolutists want to make it.

kim of course has every right to be angry and hurt upon discovering the treason, regardless of thurston's intentions.

True but in a long.marriage sex takes on different or varying levels of importance and again no matter what it doesn't exonerate or even explain violating the trust of marriage through extramarital affairs.. also it seems unnecessary to assume that because thurston had sex with someone else somehow means he and kim also didn't have a healthy sexual relationship and also damn it kim this is why i wish she wouldn't have written about this shit so we wouldn't be discussing it

WHAT???!!! Seriously, Mars, please go back and read my post again. Or, if you prefer, I'll break it down for you:

1. Nancykitten said Kim had reason to be mad.
2. I replied to Nancykitten that she doesn't know the whole story.
3. Nancykitten asserted that if Thurston had extramarital sex, then there is nothing else that one needs to know.
4. I presented one possible scenario that might lead an otherwise loving husband to stray.

In no way did I suggest that this is what happened. How would I know? The entire crux of my position is that we don't know. It disgusts me to even discuss this private matter in a public forum, but when people say they are on "Team Kim", etc. I feel the need to speak up, in the interest of fairness.

im not going to go as far as !@#$! though to be sure it did kinda seem you could have been implying such..
Rather my point was you did infer a lack of a healthy sexual relationship in that scenario completely without merit
I also agree to not enjoying this discussion but to be fair kim put it out there and we are all trying to support her. These discussions have been less gossipy than they could be like in twidder world

Part of the problem is that our society's view of what constitutes cheating on a marriage is limited to active, rather than passive, aggression. The key phrase in a marriage vow is "I do", not "I don't." In other words, marriage is a promise that not only prohibits certain behavior, such as extramarital sex, but includes DOING certain things, such as loving and cherishing your partner.

When partner A loses interest in partner B and becomes unfeeling, uncaring and emotionally absent, why is that not considered cheating, even if partner A is not sleeping with someone else? If partner B, after years of realizing this isn't going to change, seeks love elsewhere, then partner B gets blamed for cheating and in some cases, breaking up the marriage. But wasn't the marriage already broken?

I would compare this to the legal concept of "innocent unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt". "Reasonable doubt" means that, based on the facts, it's not hard to envision a scenario in which the accused is innocent. It doesn't mean that you actually believe the accused is innocent. This is why, thankfully, juries often reach a "not guilty" verdict even when they believe the accused is guilty.

i understand, but most people are not that delicate when it comes to reasoning, and they begin to argue your example as if it was reality.

it's a problem of rhetoric. i'm pointing out your bad rhetoric, not your logic, which distracts from what i thought was your main argument-- valid reasons for lying about infidelity.

but if you were actually really trying to raise 2 questions simultaneously--1. possible reasons for infidelity PLUS 2. the casuistics of dishonesty-- then i only found the latter argument relevant and/or interesting, because the former was just empty speculation framed poorly and not worth discussing.

Even in your scenario ending or even worse sabotaging a marriage is ridiculous..

Also, you went from possibly suggesting poor sexual health in the relationship to now de facto asserting Kim was "uncaring, unfeeling, and emotionally absent" so perhaps you should quit while you are only down rather than waiting to lose your shirt and get tossed out the Casino?







after all...


;) ;)

Once again, I'm not asserting anything about Kim or Thurston. I'm objecting to the fact that others are.

Sorry for making a logical inference but you realized most people weren't talking about purely rhetorical devices but the actual broken marriage of Kim and Thurston? You can't fault ones for coming to this conclusion..

Further I disagree with even your rhetorical premise regardless of whomever the marriage is.. Ending or sabotaging a marriage out of sexual issues is not necessarily a very "adult" thing to do.. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, I'm saying its not justified.

rip sonic youth they were no scissor shock but they were still really good and prob even up there with great 20/21st century bands

all this someone elses relationship crap - all i got to say is fuck her right in the pussy whoever she is and let that be the fucking end of it.

oh, batería, why must you sink so low? if you're attempting irony i think it's being lost. i'm purposely not quoting you so as not to perpetuate.

wtf?

dude if you're suggesting i dont actually think scissor shock are better than sy then you're wrong.

but this goddamn thread and all the others.

its all NONE of our business.

wish it would all be deleted along with all the stupid speculation.

i don't agree the discussion is none of our business as it's part of a book-- at this point it's like discussing the entangled relations of anna karenina and vronsky and karenin and their son and kitty and levin.

i find the speculation distracting and irrelevant and in poor taste in spite of any good intentions, but that's a specific issue not a general one.

Scissor Shock was worse than famine and AIDS combined in the same African, GAY child. Truly one of the worst bands of our time.

Hence why I didn't read the book nor decide to actually speculate into the details of the situation rather to refute all such speculations as unnecessary to begin with. I agree and Magic already mentioned it as well, we really shouldn't be discussing all this shit..

im not against the book or anyone INVOLVED saying whatever they want.

its when people start their interrogative speculatory horseshit that always has some sort of weird hetero-libidinal agenda which turns into insulting kim or t-dog or just BEING NOSY CREEPS then it shouldnt happen

excellent quote should have been an album blurb

well, YES.


ha ha! yes to that too.

apparently they didn't. apparently all that mattered was thurston's need for a little side nookie. these should have been considerations of his. kim stuck it out for a while, they tried therapy, they tried other things. in the end, thurston's needs overwrote kim's and his daughter's and the band's. there's no way he couldn't have assumed his actions would hurt other people. it just didn't matter as much to him. that's the simplest way to put it. but hey, if he's happy and satisfied now, and if Ms. Prinz's sexual practices don't change at all with age, it should all be worth it to him, right?

again with the stupid assumptions and speculations.

"side nookie"? how the fuck do you know what that affair was about? could have been about anything. they have to go to therapy to figure it out, but you already know from a distance?



maybe you should open up an office where you do telepathic consultations.

the fact is-- we don't know why the affair happened, or why it continued/continues.

and we're not being told why, and we should be fine with that, instead of trying to peer like creepos into someone's psyche and projecting our own limitations onto their lives.

for fucks sakes.

(@ magic wheel-- see, this is why your "example" was so unfortunate-- it's now being discussed as fact, rather than any X factor. people are not logical like that-- they get sidetracked in silly narratives and salacious images.)

anyway, we've become the youtube comments now. the simples that got suckered in, as jennthebenn said. time to go kill myself.

she had a baby with Thurston. that is much more than just an affair....

Btw fucked up symbol is one of the most intelligent guys on here! The example Magic came up with was definitely unfortunate to say the least. Especially in a place as unused to nuanced discussion as SYG! And when people first started saying team Kim or team Thurston I assumed it was a joke, should've known better of course..

I was joking with the "Team Kim" but it's cuz I love her all the time

I don't know what the affair was about. I do know what it wasn't about - respect for marital vows, or bandmates, considering the marital relationship was a part of the business relationship.

"side nookie" is just a term. not quite sure how intentions are worked into that term. I probably could have just as easily have said "it was all about thurston's needs" and ended the sentence there. would that make you happier with my wording? i think either are accurate statements, but I will modify it for the sake of your argument.

Kim Gordon speaks to Lauren Laverne

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b055pvxg

i shouldn't reply to this because i blew my brains out and i have lost the power of speech.

but i don't know the reasons for the affair either-- i have my own theories/imaginations but i won't talk about them because they're 100% irrelevant to this book.

i side with kim because i've always liked her more and she's more interesting and she's evidently hurt by the whole thing. but i'll stop at that-- i am not equipped to discern what went into what.

so what i'm hoping for in this thread is a little bit of wittgenstein-- whereof one cannot speak, thereof must one be silent. not because it makes me happier, but just out of respect for everyone, especially kim-- and i say this because i'm clearly biased in her favor. she did her book with flair and class, let's not drag her through the mud.

For once i agree with !@#$! why all this gossipy speculation? We know the marriage broke up, if they wanted to share the specifics they would have. Kim shared here feelings but not her reasons and the only thing we e should focus on about their marriage is that, what she chose to share. Also the insinuated kim bashing and/or thurston vindications seem silly at best, needlessly scathing at worse. Can we get back to the book now?

I guess I see your point - I was replying to Magic Wheel Memory's horribly offensive breakdown of the situation, and marriage in general, which maybe silence might have been the better course, but it sure didn't feel that way. But I don't see my comments as dragging Kim through the mud, either. My intentions were quite the opposite.

i totally get it, but in replying to his horrible hypothesis (he wasn't really trying to analyze things, it was just an "example" of a possible situation, but it was so lively and detailed in its atrocity that it was easy to read like he was making claims instead of constructing a fictional scenario)-- it just perpetuates the original horror of his imagery and lends it further credence. it's like poking a rotten carcass with a stick just to have a million flies explode out of it! ha ha. best to just walk past it.

anyway-- friends, everyone? i don't believe magic wheel's intentions were bad-- just, like i said, his "example" was very (very!) poorly chosen and it sidetracked things.

IN ANY CASE

the book has so much more.

it's much more interesting i think how kim and her mentor (what was the name? i have the audio version so it's hard to look up names-- the one at otis college) would drive around LA doing aesthetic readings of the most commonplace objects and ordinary buildings-- no? i totally wanna do that now.

Sorry Rob, timing of that post was bad, it wasn't intended as a reply to your good self, I realise you are quite tongue in cheek! I was writing the post directly after the previous one I wrote then when I posted I saw you had replied in the interim and it looked rude! Sorry, just to let you know we can still be friends!

I am friends with everyone here, even those that I argue with (especially with those).

this thread has gone too far.

kim and thurston divorced, sy split up. thats basically it. sy gave us over 3 decades of music and went longer than the vast majority of bands ever do, while putting out quality stuff the entire time. its over.

when people start making up theories and casting blame about SOMEONE ELSES RELATIONSHIP its going too far. its surprising to me that people have emotionally invested so much in it but IF YOU THINK THESE PEOPLE OWE YOU ANYTHING YOU'RE DELUSIONAL.

imagine if it was your parents divorce being discussed like this by random strangers who made up theories. imagine how fucking awful that would be.

some of the discussion has actually been intelligent and nuanced but much of it is nasty or just plain intrusive - including stuff by me trying to be funny.

see, divorce hurts everybody and has serious effects. what people who go through it dont need is others discussing it like has been done here, in a googlable forum.

some of you need to calm down because it reads like you think this is an open ended narrative and someone in sy is gonna be proved to be the wrongdoer and the band are gonna get back together again. nope. it is actually over.

if i was mod i'd delete a load of posts and close another thread that should have been deleted and had the user banned in the sonic sharing forum, but thats just me.

Word

Thank you for recognizing my intentions, !@#$%!, even if we don't fully agree. Perhaps my example was offensive, but in my mind, no more offensive than people vilifying a man based on a private matter that they know so little about. I felt the need to introduce some uncertainty into the discussion. Maybe it will open some minds, or maybe it will prove to be a futile effort, as you suggested.

In any case, yes, friends. :)

I don't think anyone doubted your good intentions rather no matter how you sliced the cake it was a case of foot in mouth..

i wonder if that post she mentions in her book is still up on here

I bumped it recently.