Jamie Foxx on why he never got married: ‘I just keep moving’

Jamie Foxx doesn’t usually talk about his private life. There were many theories when he was with Katie Holmes about how they had to keep it on the down-low because of Xenu and other Tom Cruise related things, but Jamie has never been public about any of his relationships. For instance, there was much speculation that Jamie was still in a relationship with Kristin Grannis while he was with Katie. Kristin is Annalise’s mom, Jaimie’s younger daughter, and from what I could find, Jamie and Kristin are on good terms. Jamie’s older daughter, Corrine, is making a name for herself in Hollywood. Her mom, Connie Kline, stays out of the public eye but also maintains a good relationship with Jamie and Corrine. According to Jamie, the reason everyone gets on so well is because he didn’t mess up the relationships with marriage. Jamie told E! that marriage and the whole white picket fenced in yard idea never appealed to him.

Jamie Foxx exclusively dished during E! News’ Daily Pop on Monday, Oct. 18 that the traditional, “cookie cutter” lifestyle never appealed to him. “The 2.5 children, the wood paneling on the station wagon and the cottage, I didn’t think that was for me,” Foxx revealed.

And, it turns out, Foxx’s relationship with his two daughters Corrine Foxx, 27, and Annalise Bishop, 12, is better for it: “A lot of those marriages ended up not doing well as the kids got older. Unfortunately, we saw the kids get fractured from their families,” Foxx cited of some of his pals’ unions. “Us, we actually came together more. So I don’t know what that is, I just know that it is different but it’s a whole lot of love.”

The Act Like You Got Some Sense author summed up, “The pressure of being married, I don’t think we can have a conversation about it. I just keep moving.”

Foxx also keeps his “great family” close.

“It was by design to have my whole family living with me, because I don’t want them living away from my circumstance,” Foxx explained. “I want them to see and share the things that I go through. There’s a lot of hard work, there’s a lot of disappointment, but there’s a lot of things to celebrate.”

[From E!]

When Jamie said, “us, we actually came together more,” I assume he means ‘us’ as in his daughters and their moms. So he’s saying they were able to maintain a relationship as a family because they didn’t have the pressure of marriage pulling them apart. I don’t know what he means by he keeps moving, though. He keeps moving through relationships? Or he keeps dodging the question? My guess is he feels the idea of marriage would confine him. I understand that and it’s cool to have someone be so upfront about it. People should say they don’t want marriage (or kids, if the case may be) just as easily as saying they do. If things are working as well as Jamie says they are, then whatever they’ve got going on is working.

I like what Jamie said about having everyone live close together so they can live near his circumstances. I’ve never heard anyone in the industry say anything like that and I think it’s a great way to contextualize privilege.




Photo credit: Instagram and Avalon Red

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

16 Responses to “Jamie Foxx on why he never got married: ‘I just keep moving’”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Alexandria says:

    If he treats his partner and kid(s) fairly (emotionally and financially), and everyone’s expectations are met, I’m inclined to agree marriage is not necessary.

  2. Normades says:

    He has the money and resources to pull this off. It wouldn’t work for most of us plebs.

  3. Lightpurple says:

    My 92 year old great aunt would like Jamie to know that if he ever changes his mind on the marriage thing, she’s available.

  4. Jane B says:

    Haven’t we seen photos of Jamie with young women in their early twenties who want to get into music? I don’t think he’s doing age appropriate dating and I think like many powerful people he likes using that power to have sex with young women.

    • Sigmund says:

      That’s true. Idk. His comments about not wanting marriage combined with his outings with MUCH younger women give me an icky feeling, but I guess as long as everybody knows the score and is a consenting adult, it’s all above board, more or less.

  5. Chaine says:

    I think he means that he doesn’t want any commitments so that he can feel free to spread himself around with whomever with no strings attached. Which, I’m not sure that is really praiseworthy, it’s what lots of men want but most are not big Hollywood stars who have the money to support multiple households Sister Wives style.

    • Goldie says:

      To be fair, he has 2 kids who are like 15 years apart. I wouldn’t call that “spreading his seed, sister wives style”.
      I’m not really fond of him for other reasons, though.

    • Oh_Hey says:

      I get that we’re all trying no to shame someone for their choices but it’s hard to just outright say “ I never wanted to be a husband or committ but I’m happy to father your children” in a non-platonic way. It’s just icky.
      Two friends wanting to have kids without being romantic is great. To adults in a committed relationship- same. Guy saying out loud that he doesn’t want you but if babies happen they happen and it’s cool?

      It’s fine if you don’t want to get married or if you want to stay single and to adopt or have a surrogate. This is not that. I know exactly how he’ll get caught being not as cool about it. He has two daughters and if some guy said this about them (good enough for a baby momma but not a wife) he’d be upset.

      • Nope says:

        Uh, what? You can have a committed relationship without marriage. Having a child with someone is a pretty big commitment. He’s made the choice not to marry and I think it’s probably safe to assume he’s met a fair bit of wonderful women, him being a very handsome movie star. Bit rude of you to assume that he’s not wed anyone because the women he’s had children with are only ”good enough for a baby momma”.

        All he said here is that he personally does not want a traditional marriage/family life. It seems like the reason you find this to be icky is because you’re making assumptions about how he views women.

      • Oh_Hey says:

        @nope – I explicitly said adults in committed relationship is something I can understand. I wrote it right after saying two platonic folks choosing to have a child together is something I can understand. What I don’t understand and why your response is overlooking is why it’s okay to want to have children with someone you wouldn’t even imagine bringing with long term.

        That’s not me assuming that – its what he’s said. He’s already shown twice he’s willing to have kids with someone he’s never consider marrying or being with long term as he’s said he doesn’t so that. Kids in my opinion are a much longer commitment to that other parent than any marriage or relationship will ever be. Again – are you or anyone else ok with having kids with someone you actively done see yourself with long term? If so why do that willingly as he’s choosing to?

      • remarks says:

        In Hollywood, a lot of people marry but wind up divorced anyway with kids by different fathers or mothers.

        I don’t really see this situation as much different.

        Kate Hudson has kids by different dads and has been married and not married to some of the dads. Kate Winslet has different kids by different dads and has been married to all of the dads. I’m trying to think of an example of a man like this — Jude Law? He has kids by different partners. Maybe Hugh Grant does too? And the list goes on and on.

        By comparison, Jamie Foxx only has two.

        In the end, it all sounds complicated to me. But the situation that Jamie Foxx sounds similar to everyone else’s situation in Hollywood. Some get married, some don’t. They eventually all wind up single anyway with different mothers and fathers for their kids. I’m a little puzzled as to why marriage would be the stickler here as setting him apart from the rest of Hollywood.

        I think I’m assuming he had an actual relationship boyfriend/girlfriend relationship of some kind with these women, but it didn’t work out long-term (in the same way a lot of these marriages and/or partnerships didn’t). I think the women have a choice not to have kids with him as well. They don’t have to procreate with him,

        I have a personal preference for marriage if I were to choose to have children, but considering the failure rate in Hollywood I can see why some of them choose to forego it.

      • Nope says:

        But was he not in a relationship with both these women when they got pregnant? How do you know what their situation and long-term plans were at the time? Based on what I know, these are two children with loving parents who get along great and are financially comfortable. The kids speak very highly of him. He’s in their lives, he’s stayed close with both of the mothers, they have a great long-term platonic relationship. What seems to be the problem?

        You speak of him like he’s a deadbeat dad who abandoned their mothers, when by all accounts they have a relationship that works for them. There’s various situations where you may have a kid with someone you’re not planning to be in a romantic relationship with, as you said. Why is this one not OK?

        He didn’t say he’d never be in a long-term relationship – he was with Katie Holmes for six years! He just doesn’t, for whatever reason, think that marriage is the right choice for him. How would you know whether or not he thought the relationships with the mothers of his kids would last at the time when he was in them? Sometimes life happens and you break up with your partner. Sometimes you even break up with a partner you’re married to. You don’t know whether or not he said to these women ”I don’t actually like you enough to be with you but you’re good enough to have my kid!” That one is definitely an assumption on your part.

        Maybe they planned a future, she got pregnant, for whatever reason at some stage after, they broke up. And even if not, what’s the issue? Is it not exactly the same as having a child that you raise together with a friend, as you said? It doesn’t necessarily mean that he thinks these women aren’t good enough for him.

      • BothSidesNow says:

        @ Oh_Hey, I understand what you are saying. Though JF might be perfectly fine with living with and creating babies with women with zero expectations of marriage in his part, he might think differently when it comes to HIS daughters!! JF might not be so impressed by men who want to be with his daughters, but not commit to them fully. In fact, JF might be a father that expects differently for HIS daughters, but not for his baby mommas.


  6. KinChicago says:

    I can’t fault him for this. He has never lied about his intentions to his partners, the public or to garner award committee attention.

    My family is from the same small Texas town he grew up in… where even after success, still does so much for that community. He is a good person!

  7. Tanya says:

    I have a friend who fundamentally believes that all sexual relationships eventually goer stagnant, and that it’s normal to want to pursue new partners. He separates the limerence stage from the commitment stage. So he was only willing to get married if both sides are in the same page with regards to (non) monogamy. It took him awhile, but get did get married. The ironic thing is that neither he or his husband have opened up the marriage. They just want the option.