Travis and Taylor

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He is over the target. Millennial and gen X women were sold a bill of goods by mass media and feminists. Taylor Swift at 35 unmarried and childless and rich isn’t aspirational, it’s sad.

She is absolutely young enough to have kids. Cameron Diaz had her first child at 47, Janet Jackson at 50, Naomi Campbell at 52, Jane Seymour had twins at 50 and so dod Adrienne Barbeau, Cheryl Tiegs had twins at 52, Brigitte Neilson just had a child in her mid-50s, Donna mills had her first at 54, Chole Sevignry, etc.... In Hollywood 34 (Taylor's age) would be a "young mom."

I think you’re confusing had a kid with literally bought a kid.

Oh, please. And the point is Taylor didn't miss some sort of window.

She very likely missed out on getting pregnant naturally without a doctor’s help. She missed out on 10 years or so of seeing her kids and grandkids growing up.

No. Almost all women her age get pregnant without a doctor. Like 98%. Know before you speak.

“Almost all” women over age 35? No.

Well we don’t know if a doctor help it look at Naomi Campbell, she had her first child in her 50s and her second child in her 50s. Chloe Savigny, Cameron, Diaz, Hilary, Swank, etc. all had their first children in their late 40s. T-Swift may be way too young to be worrying about fertility.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He is over the target. Millennial and gen X women were sold a bill of goods by mass media and feminists. Taylor Swift at 35 unmarried and childless and rich isn’t aspirational, it’s sad.

She is absolutely young enough to have kids. Cameron Diaz had her first child at 47, Janet Jackson at 50, Naomi Campbell at 52, Jane Seymour had twins at 50 and so dod Adrienne Barbeau, Cheryl Tiegs had twins at 52, Brigitte Neilson just had a child in her mid-50s, Donna mills had her first at 54, Chole Sevignry, etc.... In Hollywood 34 (Taylor's age) would be a "young mom."

I think you’re confusing had a kid with literally bought a kid.

Oh, please. And the point is Taylor didn't miss some sort of window.

She very likely missed out on getting pregnant naturally without a doctor’s help. She missed out on 10 years or so of seeing her kids and grandkids growing up.

She’s 34, not 44.

Age 34 delivery at 35 means BEST CASE any pregnancy moving forward will be a high risk geriatric pregnancy.

What? This is ridiculous. 34 is not “high risk.” Its rare nowadays to have kids at 24, at least in urban areas.

You’re conflating popularity with risk and science. Yes, many women wait too long and are forced into high-risk pregnancies, if they can even get pregnant. Fertility clinics are big business because millions wait too long. Swift will likely require a doctor’s help to get pregnant at this point.

This is based on some USA Today headlines you read once, not reality. Fertility begins to decline in your 30s but it doesn't magically disappear overnight. A 35 yr old women may, statistically, have lower fertility than women in their 20s. But she also, statistically, has much higher fertility than women in their 40s. It can also vary greatly from person to person. There are many, many women who conceive naturally in their mid-30s with no assistance. Including both women who are having their first children or second/third/fourth children. The idea that you hit 35 and suddenly you cannot get pregnant without intervention is simply false. Your statistical likelihood of having issues conceiving go up. But a person is not a statistical likelihood.

You also keep confusing "high risk pregnancy" with any pregnancy past 35. Talk to an actual doctor. No OB-GYN considers an otherwise healthy woman in her mid-to-late 30s "high risk" unless there are factors other than age that would increase risk (weight, history of repeated miscarriages or other fertility issues, etc.). Again, there is a higher statistical likelihood of a high risk pregnancy after 35, but this does not mean that all pregnancies after 35 are high risk. And this statistic is skewed by the fact that women who DO have trouble conceiving or carrying to term are more likely to be in the over-35 group. But an actual doctor will treat a woman with that history differently than a women who had no issues conceiving and no other risk factors, but happens to be 35 or 36 or 37.

It's dumb to be having this conversation in this thread, but since the subject is Taylor Swift (who we don't even know wants to have kids, nor do we know anything about her reproductive situation), but just hypothetically -- Taylor Swift is 34, a healthy weight and appears to be in very good health generally. Also, perhaps most importantly, Swift's mom had two kid in her 30s, at ages 32 and 35. Statistically, Swift has every reason to believe she could have one or more kids in the next few years with minimal or no issues. Even if she needed fertility treatment, this is hardly an obstacle for a woman with her resources, and in fact many women in her socioeconomic class simply engage fertility doctors as a matter of course, because they don't care about the cost and it heads off issues before they arise. I know women who simply did in vitro because they could afford it and it allowed them maximum control over the process, before even seeing if they could conceive naturally. They liked being able to screen the embryos for viability before implantation, and it also allowed them to control when their pregnancy occurred with precision.

while anyone can have issues --- fertility doctors will tell you that they pay for the beach house and the expensive cars with women over 40. Could that include 38 up for some -- sure. But somewhere around 40. They find that for most women under 40 the issues can be resolved and cheaply.

Right. And Taylor Swift just turned 34, and her mom had two healthy kids in her mid 30s. So the idea that it's too late for her to have kids, or that having them at this point will automatically be challenging or require a surrogate, is insane.

Be reminded of the history, The genesis of Taylor and Travis. They secretly started dating. They were able to keep it under wraps in the beginning; obviously, if she gets pregnant, they’ll do the same. It’s just going to sneak up and surprise everyone. She clearly appreciates privacy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He is over the target. Millennial and gen X women were sold a bill of goods by mass media and feminists. Taylor Swift at 35 unmarried and childless and rich isn’t aspirational, it’s sad.

She is absolutely young enough to have kids. Cameron Diaz had her first child at 47, Janet Jackson at 50, Naomi Campbell at 52, Jane Seymour had twins at 50 and so dod Adrienne Barbeau, Cheryl Tiegs had twins at 52, Brigitte Neilson just had a child in her mid-50s, Donna mills had her first at 54, Chole Sevignry, etc.... In Hollywood 34 (Taylor's age) would be a "young mom."

I think you’re confusing had a kid with literally bought a kid.

Oh, please. And the point is Taylor didn't miss some sort of window.

She very likely missed out on getting pregnant naturally without a doctor’s help. She missed out on 10 years or so of seeing her kids and grandkids growing up.

She’s 34, not 44.

Age 34 delivery at 35 means BEST CASE any pregnancy moving forward will be a high risk geriatric pregnancy.

What? This is ridiculous. 34 is not “high risk.” Its rare nowadays to have kids at 24, at least in urban areas.

You’re conflating popularity with risk and science. Yes, many women wait too long and are forced into high-risk pregnancies, if they can even get pregnant. Fertility clinics are big business because millions wait too long. Swift will likely require a doctor’s help to get pregnant at this point.

It’s a good thing you can’t make choices for the rest of us AND that your vote counts as much as mine. I have a feeling we cancel each other out.

What does voting have to do with a middle aged pop star needing IVF and a surrogate if she wants kids?

Well, obviously, we can’t speak for Taylor, but a surrogate could make sense because of her career. Much of her career is performing and it’s very physical. A gestational “surrogate” would allow her to continue to perform sold out stadiums and venues uninterrupted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He is over the target. Millennial and gen X women were sold a bill of goods by mass media and feminists. Taylor Swift at 35 unmarried and childless and rich isn’t aspirational, it’s sad.

She is absolutely young enough to have kids. Cameron Diaz had her first child at 47, Janet Jackson at 50, Naomi Campbell at 52, Jane Seymour had twins at 50 and so dod Adrienne Barbeau, Cheryl Tiegs had twins at 52, Brigitte Neilson just had a child in her mid-50s, Donna mills had her first at 54, Chole Sevignry, etc.... In Hollywood 34 (Taylor's age) would be a "young mom."

I think you’re confusing had a kid with literally bought a kid.

Oh, please. And the point is Taylor didn't miss some sort of window.

She very likely missed out on getting pregnant naturally without a doctor’s help. She missed out on 10 years or so of seeing her kids and grandkids growing up.

She’s 34, not 44.

Age 34 delivery at 35 means BEST CASE any pregnancy moving forward will be a high risk geriatric pregnancy.

What? This is ridiculous. 34 is not “high risk.” Its rare nowadays to have kids at 24, at least in urban areas.

You’re conflating popularity with risk and science. Yes, many women wait too long and are forced into high-risk pregnancies, if they can even get pregnant. Fertility clinics are big business because millions wait too long. Swift will likely require a doctor’s help to get pregnant at this point.

It’s a good thing you can’t make choices for the rest of us AND that your vote counts as much as mine. I have a feeling we cancel each other out.

What does voting have to do with a middle aged pop star needing IVF and a surrogate if she wants kids?

How old is Travis? No one‘s discussing his age and or fertility. Also, do we even know if HE wants kids?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He is over the target. Millennial and gen X women were sold a bill of goods by mass media and feminists. Taylor Swift at 35 unmarried and childless and rich isn’t aspirational, it’s sad.

She is absolutely young enough to have kids. Cameron Diaz had her first child at 47, Janet Jackson at 50, Naomi Campbell at 52, Jane Seymour had twins at 50 and so dod Adrienne Barbeau, Cheryl Tiegs had twins at 52, Brigitte Neilson just had a child in her mid-50s, Donna mills had her first at 54, Chole Sevignry, etc.... In Hollywood 34 (Taylor's age) would be a "young mom."

I think you’re confusing had a kid with literally bought a kid.

No. There’s no confusion.

[Anonymous]

She’s going to weave in her new album re release soon and it’s amazing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He is over the target. Millennial and gen X women were sold a bill of goods by mass media and feminists. Taylor Swift at 35 unmarried and childless and rich isn’t aspirational, it’s sad.

She is absolutely young enough to have kids. Cameron Diaz had her first child at 47, Janet Jackson at 50, Naomi Campbell at 52, Jane Seymour had twins at 50 and so dod Adrienne Barbeau, Cheryl Tiegs had twins at 52, Brigitte Neilson just had a child in her mid-50s, Donna mills had her first at 54, Chole Sevignry, etc.... In Hollywood 34 (Taylor's age) would be a "young mom."

I think you’re confusing had a kid with literally bought a kid.

Oh, please. And the point is Taylor didn't miss some sort of window.

She very likely missed out on getting pregnant naturally without a doctor’s help. She missed out on 10 years or so of seeing her kids and grandkids growing up.

No. Almost all women her age get pregnant without a doctor. Like 98%. Know before you speak.

“Almost all” women over age 35? No.

Well we don’t know if a doctor help it look at Naomi Campbell, she had her first child in her 50s and her second child in her 50s. Chloe Savigny, Cameron, Diaz, Hilary, Swank, etc. all had their first children in their late 40s. T-Swift may be way too young to be worrying about fertility.

You are hopeless.

[Anonymous]

This is such a weird thread.
Hope she sweeps the Grammys tonight and announces rep tv🐍🐍🐍🐍🐍🐍🐍🐍🐍🐍🐍🐍🐍 🖤🖤🖤🖤🖤🖤🖤🖤🖤🖤🖤🖤🖤

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He is over the target. Millennial and gen X women were sold a bill of goods by mass media and feminists. Taylor Swift at 35 unmarried and childless and rich isn’t aspirational, it’s sad.

She is absolutely young enough to have kids. Cameron Diaz had her first child at 47, Janet Jackson at 50, Naomi Campbell at 52, Jane Seymour had twins at 50 and so dod Adrienne Barbeau, Cheryl Tiegs had twins at 52, Brigitte Neilson just had a child in her mid-50s, Donna mills had her first at 54, Chole Sevignry, etc.... In Hollywood 34 (Taylor's age) would be a "young mom."

I think you’re confusing had a kid with literally bought a kid.

Oh, please. And the point is Taylor didn't miss some sort of window.

She very likely missed out on getting pregnant naturally without a doctor’s help. She missed out on 10 years or so of seeing her kids and grandkids growing up.

She’s 34, not 44.

Age 34 delivery at 35 means BEST CASE any pregnancy moving forward will be a high risk geriatric pregnancy.

What? This is ridiculous. 34 is not “high risk.” Its rare nowadays to have kids at 24, at least in urban areas.

You’re conflating popularity with risk and science. Yes, many women wait too long and are forced into high-risk pregnancies, if they can even get pregnant. Fertility clinics are big business because millions wait too long. Swift will likely require a doctor’s help to get pregnant at this point.

It’s a good thing you can’t make choices for the rest of us AND that your vote counts as much as mine. I have a feeling we cancel each other out.

What does voting have to do with a middle aged pop star needing IVF and a surrogate if she wants kids?

How old is Travis? No one‘s discussing his age and or fertility. Also, do we even know if HE wants kids?

We know nothing and this thread has turned into a full on dumpster fire.

[Anonymous]

I can see Taylor not wanting to ruin her body and going the surrogacy route.

[Anonymous]

I know she won't be with Travis but I'm irritated she has not shown up on the Grammy's red carpet because my interest in her as a person is at peak levels which means, of course, I need to see her in an evening gown. This is the way of celebrities.

I kind of want her to wear something subversive just to mess with people. Like go goth, and wear pants. Just something to make people ask a lot of questions and read WAY too much into it. For fun!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I know she won't be with Travis but I'm irritated she has not shown up on the Grammy's red carpet because my interest in her as a person is at peak levels which means, of course, I need to see her in an evening gown. This is the way of celebrities.

I kind of want her to wear something subversive just to mess with people. Like go goth, and wear pants. Just something to make people ask a lot of questions and read WAY too much into it. For fun!

She will be the very last to arrive. Like very last.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I can see Taylor not wanting to ruin her body and going the surrogacy route.

What is wrong with you/

MYOB and shut up

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I know she won't be with Travis but I'm irritated she has not shown up on the Grammy's red carpet because my interest in her as a person is at peak levels which means, of course, I need to see her in an evening gown. This is the way of celebrities.

I kind of want her to wear something subversive just to mess with people. Like go goth, and wear pants. Just something to make people ask a lot of questions and read WAY too much into it. For fun!

I HATE that I know this, but she’s just took her website down with a fake error message and her fans are going crazy trying to unravel the clues. So I expect her look tonight to play into that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know she won't be with Travis but I'm irritated she has not shown up on the Grammy's red carpet because my interest in her as a person is at peak levels which means, of course, I need to see her in an evening gown. This is the way of celebrities.

I kind of want her to wear something subversive just to mess with people. Like go goth, and wear pants. Just something to make people ask a lot of questions and read WAY too much into it. For fun!

She will be the very last to arrive. Like very last.

I know! It's irritating. I don't care about ANY of these other people.

Okay Dua Lipa looks cool and I like boygenius's matching suits and pink carnations. But I mostly want to see Taylor.