Angelina Jolie - Is It Right?

[DTravel]

I think her having a double mastectomy simply because she has a slightly higher than average chance of breast cancer is an irrational, self-destructive decision made by someone who's life is ruled by fear.

[buttsie]

Originally Posted by Begoozam

I am rarely bothered by moral quandaries, but the issue of Angelina Jolie plays on my mind as I was curious to know people's thoughts.

Beautiful, sexy, alluring - and there's a ton of movies where she displays her perfect form. I used to love collecting and watching the stuff. She is the ultimate eye candy.

And then she had a double mastectomy and I just find it tawdry and 'wrong' to be ogling her in the knowledge that she has voluntarily had to massacre herself for the sake of her life.

Am I right or wrong?

If it doesnt feel right dont do it

Its an interesting question which for my mind is similar to another topic about
dead pornstars which asked is it right or can you get off to them

Anyone having surgery to avoid a hereditary threat is just being smart

Just as some cant stand surgery for enhancing bodies every image / video
before that time still remains intact so the fantasies will live on

I'd expect there are some 18 year old models on VEF who are now either dead or in old age
not looking quite as good...wont stop anyone getting off on them because they'll never know and even if they did would they care


edit

I probably should add I'm not a fan of her movies or looks though its easy to see why others are

I'd imagine topless scenes will be out though you never know with holly weird doubles
That just leaves face - which is all natural no doubt,mid riff,ass,legs and attitude.

At 38 with all the hype that goes with the films i'm sure in another year those who dont follow her religiously wont even know she had surgery.

To be honest I trust Hollywood less than I do anyone given their penchant
for using body doubles for stars who think themselves above nudity once they've made it.

[9876543210]

DTravel

Originally Posted by DTravel

I think her having a double mastectomy simply because she has a slightly higher than average chance of breast cancer is an irrational, self-destructive decision made by someone who's life is ruled by fear.

So, are you saying that if you went into your doctor, and he/she told you that you have an 87% chance of getting cancer in your balls, that you'd keep them?

If I was in my 20's or 30's and hadn't had any kids I might think a bit harder about that question. But since I'm long past that time I'd tell the doctor to schedule the surgery as fast as possible. I've seen people with cancer. Its really, really painful and ugly.

[Mal Hombre]

To answer the original question,Yes I think it is right to continue to "enjoy" pictures and video of AJ before Her surgery.Whilst I doubt She'd be over keen on the likes of Us perving over Her,I think She'd prefer that to guys going Eeew! because They're creeped out by the fact that She's had the surgery.

[Historian]

Originally Posted by snowy25

I believe her chances of getting breast cancer were as high as 87% and around 50% for ovarian cancer. She inherited the gene that increases the chances hugely and it was not a risk she wanted to take. If you knew chopping your nuts off would cut your risk of cancer from 87% to less than 5% what would you do?

Those with the faulty BRCA1 gene have an average risk of 65% for breast cancer. Its even higher for those whose close relative died from the disease, which is why her risk was so high.

Her mother, Marcheline Bertrand died of ovarian cancer aged 56, her maternal grandmother also had ovarian cancer and died aged 45, and her aunt died from breast cancer aged 61. With that kind of medical history in the family, and knowing she carries the faulty gene, I'd say Ms Jolie has plenty of reason to be a little paranoid when it comes to cancer- 87% sounds like pretty scary odds to me....

It may well seem an extreme course of action for those of us fortunate enough not to have to walk in her shoes, but I'd imagine that the desire to stay around long enough to see her children grow up would overcome any doubts in her mind that she's doing the right thing.

As to the question of whether it's still OK to ogle Angelina, knowing what we know, I'd say that mastectomy and reconstructive surgery or not, she's still a stunningly attractive and sexy woman, and in the incredibly unlikely event any of us were ever lucky enough to find ourselves in a 'bedroom situation' with her, let's face it, you'd hardly say 'no' would you...?

[dethtongue]

Originally Posted by DTravel

I think her having a double mastectomy simply because she has a slightly higher than average chance of breast cancer is an irrational, self-destructive decision made by someone who's life is ruled by fear.

87% isn't a slightly higher chance, and regular check ups or not once one of those lumps is big enough to feel the odds are good that its already spread to other places. Put another way if someone told you that you had an 87% chance of dying if you got on an airplane is it being ruled by fear to refuse to get on it or just common sense?

She's an actress whose famous the world over for her looks and sex appeal. I'm reasonably sure she didn't just decide to lob her bread winners off because of blind panic. She's always struck me as someone whose rather calculating actually. I'm pretty sure she thought this out rather thoroughly.

As for weather its weird or irrational to lust after her given the circumstances I guess that's all down to the individual person. I'm not going to say its wrong because I've always been a bit weirded out by pictures of people like Dorothy Stratton or Savanah given their eventual fates, but maybe the flip side is she cant be completely clueless as to what your average man likes about her or what they might be doing with her picture in the privacy of their own homes. In a fucked up way it could be considered a compliment to her and her situation.

[9876543210]

dethtongue,

Originally Posted by dethtongue

I'm not going to say its wrong because I've always been a bit weirded out by pictures of people like Dorothy Stratton ...

Good point! I always thought Dorothy was absolutely gorgeous but I can't even look at her thread today. So I guess for me there are limits.

Angelina yes! But sadly, Dorothy no. Must be because of the way her life ended.

[winebeavis]

Put me in the camp with Dtravel and BHF. It seems irrational to have any body part removed because somebody put a statistical number on it. She's also the only person I've heard of doing something like this.

I get taking precautions, extra precautions even if paranoid. She can get a full screening from a pro with her resources. But amputation? Seems extreme to me.

Again, they're hers. Not my place to tell her what to do. No, I wouldn't do the same if in a similar situation.

[snowy25]

Yes it is a statistical number but its well researched and well documented fact that the faulty gene increases your risk to extreme levels. The figures quoted are not the usual risk ratios that you and I deal with. For example 1 in 6 men will get prostate cancer but that is still a relatively small risk to us as individuals. However if we're personally told that we had an 87% risk of getting prostate cancer thats a much different figure and much scarier. Also a relatively simple operation for her now makes her life much less stressful. She doesn't have to have multiple check ups a year and stress waiting for results. She has cut her personal risk from over 80% to 5% of this gene causing her breast cancer.

Some women like Sharon Osbourne and Christina Applegate wait until cancer is there, or someplace else, and then choose to have the operation. However there are also many like Angelina who chose to be proactive and have surgery.