Kandi Burruss’s response to Todd Tucker’s public comments about their marriage brings us back to a boundary that matters in the lifestyle: agreeing to an intimate experience does not mean agreeing to have it shared with an audience. Our take is simple. Privacy deserves care during a relationship and after it ends, and nobody needs to be ashamed of consensual intimacy to want its details kept private.
What did Kandi Burruss say about Todd Tucker’s comments?
In a September 14 report, theGrio covered Tucker’s comments in a trailer for ’Til Divorce Do Us Part. Asked about threesomes, he said they had happened “for most of our marriage.” That is his public account, not an invitation for us to fill in the details.
Us Weekly reported Burruss’s response on September 17, citing her statement to People the previous day. She objected to the public treatment of their sex life and emphasized that consensual experiences within their marriage were private. The outlet reports that their split was announced in November 2025 and the divorce was finalized earlier this year.
We are not going to guess at their private agreements or decide what ended their marriage. What we can talk about is the boundary Burruss is naming. Being comfortable with something in private and being comfortable discussing it publicly are two different decisions.
Does consent to intimacy include permission to tell the story?
For us, that conversation needs its own yes. A person might happily agree to an experience and still want their name, messages, photographs and details kept out of someone else’s story. That is not hypocrisy. It is a boundary about who gets access to their life.
Think about how quickly a story can travel. You tell one friend, they tell their partner, and suddenly people you never spoke to know something you thought was staying in a small circle. Leaving out a name may not help if the place, timing or other details make the person recognizable.
We would rather have the slightly awkward conversation ahead of time: What are we comfortable sharing? With whom? Does that include social media? And if either of us changes our mind, how do we handle that with care? Everyone involved deserves consideration, including someone who is not part of the couple.
It is a theme we return to in our take on AOL’s open-relationship fiancé story: a label cannot do the work of an actual agreement. The details of what people understand and choose together matter.
What does privacy look like after a relationship ends?
A breakup can bring hurt, anger and a strong desire to explain your side. We understand why people need support. Our view is that ending a relationship does not automatically erase the care owed to someone’s intimate information.
There is also a difference between seeking help and giving an audience intimate details for entertainment. Privacy should never be used to stop someone from talking about harm, getting support or asking for help. But choosing a trusted person to talk to is a very different situation from making a former partner’s consensual sex life public content.
As a community, we get a choice too. We can resist passing along identifying gossip. We can ask before posting a photo. We can hear someone say they want privacy without treating that as proof they regret their choices.
That is the part we want to carry into our own conversations: being open with each other does not mean owing everyone else a window. For more about communication and boundaries, explore The Swing Nation podcast. A little more care with each other’s stories goes a long way.
Love, Dan and Lacy