Do you guys agree with Mumtaz's take on Boney/Sridevi? - Page 5

Originally posted by: nigahen

I agree 100%. Also Hema Malini didn't want to break his home...

They were just really really in love. Most women go for married men when they don't find another "suitable" man. Suitable ofc with regards to their own criteria.

HM was wooed by many and even her wedding was underway with Jeetendra when she broke it off.

Sridevi OTOH first went for married Mithun then Bony. And I read too that she didn't even let him meet his kids from first wife. I remember reading how much his first wife kids missed their daddy when they were little. Notice how all his kids became so close after her death. The first wife had died years previously so it wasn't her preventing. Everything's out in the open most times if you can just discern.

So Sridevi controlled Boney so much huh? Still couldn't stop him from producing movies for his flop son. And this was when she was alive.

I have already discussed this at length. Won’t elaborate further. You have your opinion. I have mine.

Originally posted by: blue-ice.1

Even if this is not an ideal white world and wrong things happen....the least one can do is to call a wrong thing out and not try to make it right by giving excuses for them...

I believe life happens. Things and people can’t always be fit neatly into labelled boxes like “cheater”, “affair with married man”, “abused Islam”. I respect him for his decisions. His family does too. You don’t have to.

Originally posted by: blue-ice.1

Are you guys serious?? You are justifying Dharmendra cheating on his wife and Hema Malini for having an affair with a married man....unbelievable...😳

There is no way to justify what Dharmendra and Hema did....absolutely nothing....u resect for it....He abused Islam so that he could marry Hema...they are Muslims now...do u see them following any Muslim traditions?? These 2 not just abuse Islam but also Hinduism....what are u respecting him for?

I agree with the Hema-Dharam thing here. Moreover, Dharam ji has mostly been with his first wife and their sons. While Hema lives with their daughters separately. Though Dharam visits them at times.

I feel she's much better than Sridevi who just did not break a house, made boney abandon his first wife and kids when his wife was battling a serious illness and after Mona's death also dint allow boney to be with his kids. I have no respect for Sridevi whatsoever.

Originally posted by: BlackWitch

I believe life happens. Things and people can’t always be fit neatly into labelled boxes like “cheater”, “affair with married man”, “abused Islam”. I respect him for his decisions. His family does too. You don’t have to.

Look, having affairs can only be justified when you have a very very bad marriage. Your partner is abusive or it's already broken down to the point of no return etc. However, that doesn't mean that you leave your wife the moment someone more tempting comes along. Partners aren't mobile phones that you can exchange for the latest model in the market.

Guys, please don’t bother quoting me. I have already said all I wanted to on this topic and ended the discussion beautifully with a lovely person earlier. I would just agree to disagree with the other people at this point.

The fact that I don’t have the patience for lengthy debates with different people is why my IF forum ranking hasn’t increased, despite my deep love for Sizzlerz purple 😭

Repeat and rinsing my earlier responses 😆

Originally posted by: Mahisa_22

Look, having affairs can only be justified when you have a very very bad marriage. Your partner is abusive or it's already broken down to the point of no return etc. However, that doesn't mean that you leave your wife the moment someone more tempting comes along. Partners aren't mobile phones that you can exchange for the latest model in the market.

Originally posted by: HearMeRoar

#1. The 1st marriage didn't fail looks like. It's one thing for a spouse to leave a bad marriage. What Dharm did was hanky panky with Hema, both knowing he was a married man with children. He because he could, she because her parents never let her meet any eligible men until then.

#2. People might not be able to help falling in love. But people can always help what they do about it. When you've made a promise to someone else, when you have kids with that someone, AND when that relationship is not toxic, merely mundane, you don't get to walk out and celebrate your grand romance .

Yeah, kids do come first.

Saying again, this doesn't apply in cases of bad marriages.

But merely meeting someone more exciting is not reason to leave a spouse and kids.

Love isn't about merely meeting someone otherwise it would just be a fleeting affair.

Who says a mundane isn't a bad marriage? It is a bad marriage if you want more from marriage than just a license and having kids. Marriage should hopefully be emotionally and intellectually fulfilling. It should be something done with someone you actually want to spend the rest of your life tied to. Or bottom line, marriage should be something you want to be in - otherwise it's bad.

If you make sure your ex-spouse is financially taken care of and you still take care of your kids financially and emotionally then why can't you divorce and marry someone you actually enjoy spending your life with?

Performative drudgery under a marriage contract isn't a life and isn't a good example to give to your children for their future relationships.

Dharmendra should have divorced his wife even if she didn't want to. He should have done it when he first fell in love with Hema. Even then he dragged on the affair a decade before marrying Hema - so not exactly laudable and certainly not a momentary infatuation. Though by the time he did marry Hema all his kids were in their 20s - so well past the think of the kids excuse.

It would have allowed them both to move fully move on instead of all of them living this half compromised life. Why should either of them been shackled to each other for another 40-60 years in a mundane - bad - marriage because it was arranged at 19 yrs old.

Originally posted by: Talis

Love isn't about merely meeting someone otherwise it would just be a fleeting affair.

Who says a mundane isn't a bad marriage? It is a bad marriage if you want more from marriage than just a license and having kids. Marriage should hopefully be emotionally and intellectually fulfilling. It should be something done with someone you actually want to spend the rest of your life tied to. Or bottom line, marriage should be something you want to be in - otherwise it's bad.

If you make sure your ex-spouse is financially taken care of and you still take care of your kids financially and emotionally then why can't you divorce and marry someone you actually enjoy spending your life with?

Performative drudgery under a marriage contract isn't a life and isn't a good example to give to your children for their future relationships.

Dharmendra should have divorced his wife even if she didn't want to. He should have done it when he first fell in love with Hema. Even then he dragged on the affair a decade before marrying Hema - so not exactly laudable and certainly not a momentary infatuation. Though by the time he did marry Hema all his kids were in their 20s - so well past the think of the kids excuse.

It would have allowed them both to move fully move on instead of all of them living this half compromised life. Why should either of them been shackled to each other for another 40-60 years in a mundane - bad - marriage because it was arranged at 19 yrs old.

Uh, no.

Your first responsibility is to your kids when you have them. And it's not just about financial responsibilities.

And there are enough studies out there which show kids do better when married parents stay together.

Note it doesn't say stay together in love.

So yeah... when you have kids, you don't get to expand the definition of what is a bad marriage and go and celebrate selfishness.

Originally posted by: HearMeRoar

Uh, no.

Your first responsibility is to your kids when you have them. And it's not just about financial responsibilities.

And there are enough studies out there which show kids do better when married parents stay together.

Note it doesn't say stay together in love.

So yeah... when you have kids, you don't get to expand the definition of what is a bad marriage and go and celebrate selfishness.

I didn't say just financial - I said financial and emotional for the kids. You can give your child emotional support outside of marriage. If you're a parent that's going to cut your child off after you leave you're probably already an emotionally disconnected parent who isn't doing their job. There is no reason to stay in an unhappy marriage for the kids - they know it's unhappy. They hear the fights, they feel the coldness and it affects what they themselves think of relationships and what they expect for themselves.

So he was cheating on her with Hema for 10 years (and before that Mena Kumari and most likely others) but that's a good marriage and marriage he should still be in in 41 years after converting to another religion and marrying another woman after his "kids" were in their 20s.

There is no defined definition that I am expanding. If you aren't happy in your marriage, if you're just enduring it then for me that's a BAD marriage. Your spouse doesn't have to beat you, degrade you or even cheat on you for it to be bad.

Everyone has their own definition of a bad marriage just as they do of marriage itself. Some people are happy with a spouse who has sex with them once a month, cleans the house, brings home the pay check, gives them children and never speaks to them about anything other than bills and meal plans while having deeper relationships with ones own set of friends. Some don't care about sexual or emotional fidelity if the mortgage and car payments are on time or dinners on the table and the house is clean. Some people want emotional, intellectual and/or sexual companionship within their marriage.