Justin Theroux marries 30yo GF…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Her parents were ok with her marrying a man that could basically be her father? I saw the picture of the parents in the photo. Nicole’s mother and father are probably the same age as Justin. Ick!

Do you not have kids? What were they supposed to do about it? She's fully grown and makes her own decisions. They can either support her or destroy their relationship with their daughter. That's pretty much it.

PP is likely a miserable childless spinster. Bitter old hags seething with rage that a rich bachelor their age preferred a much younger fertile woman to be his spouse and start a family.

Sounds like the mother of a daughter to me. Not all of us are in a hurry to marry them off to old men as breeding stock.

It’s a parenting forum and it’s pretty clear from the threads I frequent that a lot of us are past the age of making babies and probably have teens. So no I imagine we are not “seething with rage” that we missed out on having babies with Justin Theroux, being dragged to a premiere two weeks after giving birth, and contending with his pitbull and meant-to-stay-forever-child free apartment around our infant.

And I’m really glad my husband isn’t 25 years older than me.

There is a show called “the other two” that was on a few years ago. Pretty funny. They had a whole episode where they somehow ended up staying in Justins apartment and it was hilarious. Apparently he was in on the joke as he knows one of the creators, but it just painted him as everything on this thread. Horribly pretentious and out of touch. I am sure that the writers and creators were kidding with their friend, but there’s clearly some truth to it.

+1 and has never been gross around really young women.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Shameful it’s more important to look for fame than to look after your own kid. Pretty sure we know how this kid will turn out in 20 years.

Oh come on, let's not shame a working mother. The event was in town. They were probably away from the baby for 2-3 hours. Bet her mom or a sister is there with her. Most of us think the baby was not born in the last week. After several weeks with a newborn, I'd be happy to get dressed up and out of the house for an evening, too. That leaves a whole lot of hours with the baby.

But do I think they're fame hungry? Sure.

It’s not her movie so she wasn’t working

Every red carpet appearance is work for her.

She wasn’t in the movie, no need to attend

You don't seem to grasp how celebrity works.

Or you don’t grasp how parenting works

DP. What about parenting would preclude someone with a few weeks old baby from going and doing something for a few hours in the afternoon? If she's breastfeeding, she can pump before she leaves and even pump while she's there if necessary (they are rich and can make sure there's a private space available for that). I'm sure they have a nanny. Her family is local and they seem close, so I would also actually assume her mom or sister could stay with the baby for something like this. You take a car to the event, walk the red carpet, take photos, maybe stay for a little bit to socialize, then go home.

This is extremely normal. I was in a mom support group when my baby was this age and several of the women in our group would sometimes leave their babies home (with nannies or family) just to get a couple hours break for mental health reasons. I don't see what the issue is at all.

There is no issue. I think posters were mainly confused about the age of the baby. She definitely had not given birth just a couple days before.

Sounds like she had the baby 2 weeks before premiere. Clearly work and PR is more important to her than the baby.

Do you think anyone who spends 3 or 4 hours away from their baby at that age is a bad mom?

Or does this one just make you mad because she spent that time on a red carpet? If she's gone to a cafe with a friend, gotten her nails done, seen a therapist, etc , would all that be equally upsetting to you?

Most parental leave allows 6-12 weeks in US. It’s not to go out and party.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I haven't read this entire thread. But if the presumption is that there are objections to some wealthy 54 year old man who takes good care of himself and is extremely successful as an actor/director/producer who happens to find a younger woman as a partner, the delusions are strong here.

Where is the 54 year old woman who adds value to Justin Theroux's life? There are lots of very interesting women in their 30s and 40s. What is a 54 year old women bringing here? Maybe with a little serendipity and charm they can click.

But generally, not happening.

I agree with this and also I think he wanted kids, which made a 54 year old woman not an option. It's hard to adopt at that age. Yes it's unfair that men have this option and women don't, but it's biology. It's not something Justin did. We know he and Aniston spent several years trying to have a baby and were not able to. For all we know, the reason their split was so amicable is because Jen decided she could make peace with not having kids and Justin couldn't, and they may have decided to split specifically so they could each pursue their divergent goals -- Jen to focus on her career and friendships and enjoy her life without kids, Justin to look for a partner to have kids with. Yes it's sad in some ways, but it seems like everyone involved is being an adult about it and Jen has even expressed that she is happy for him. All's well that ends well.

People here just want drama. They want this to be a betrayal of Aniston (even though by all accounts their relationship ended amicably), they want Nicole to be a gold digger, they want the baby to have been something she tricked him into, they want them to break up, etc.

Alternatively these are just people trying to have good lives, like anyone else.

I never bought that Jen Aniston and him wanted kids. people with money can have kids. I am not sure why people don’t understand this -.if they didn’t want to adopt they could get donor eggs. It’s not at all hard if you have money.

Nicole herself said this wasn’t planned. You just can’t convince me that he wanted kids and she didn’t baby trap him.

I don’t think it’s unfair or that men have an advantage. We all get the same amount of time to be in our 20s and 30s whether we are male or female. Justin being with a younger woman doesn’t make him any younger. And his plastic surgery just screams that.

He’s going to be an old dad and that sucks. It’s sad for the kid. It’s sad for him and it’s sad for Nicole. But hey, it’s not my life.

Jen addressed the adoption issue saying she wanted a kid with her DNA. Not sure why they didn’t try surrogacy.

Because she didn’t really want a kid and she can’t say that or she will look bad. There’s always a way.

She also said she wanted to be sure she was with a great guy who would be part of a stable family. She wanted a guy who really wanted a kid with her who would be a amazing dad. That was part of her condition for entertaining motherhood, she was not interested in being a single mom by choice.

I think she (accurately!) Knew in her bones that was not Brad or Justin...

I would not compare Brad to Justin. Brad was/is an alcoholic, a womanizer, he famously cheated on Jen, he has a terrible relationship with his ex wife and with his kids, etc. Brad's a mess. He doesn't seem like he'd be a good partner to anyone.

Jen's relationship with Justin seemed pretty chill, and they still friendly. There is zero actual evidence he ever cheated on her (they've both denied it, and the fact that their split was so amicable and that a lot of their friends didn't choose a "side" and continue to hang out with both of them indicates it was just a mutual decision). Jen seemed happy when she was with Justin. I'm sure their relationship had issues (they did break up), but I don't think there's any reason to conclude that Justin wouldn't have made a good dad, or to compare him to Brad who is a demonstrably bad dad.

Too many rumors of Justin cheating. Probably some true. And cheating spouse doesn’t seem to bother Jen as she’s still friends with Brad.

Justin cheated on his live in GF when he dated Jen. Jen was Jolie to Bivens. Says a lot about Jen and Justin.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Her parents were ok with her marrying a man that could basically be her father? I saw the picture of the parents in the photo. Nicole’s mother and father are probably the same age as Justin. Ick!

Do you not have kids? What were they supposed to do about it? She's fully grown and makes her own decisions. They can either support her or destroy their relationship with their daughter. That's pretty much it.

PP is likely a miserable childless spinster. Bitter old hags seething with rage that a rich bachelor their age preferred a much younger fertile woman to be his spouse and start a family.

Sounds like the mother of a daughter to me. Not all of us are in a hurry to marry them off to old men as breeding stock.

+1 LOL good one.

[Anonymous]

That Vogue spread reminded me of the spread they did for Will Kopelman and Allie Michelin.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:That Vogue spread reminded me of the spread they did for Will Kopelman and Allie Michelin.

That's about right. Synthetic and sponsored.

[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:Shameful it’s more important to look for fame than to look after your own kid. Pretty sure we know how this kid will turn out in 20 years.

Oh come on, let's not shame a working mother. The event was in town. They were probably away from the baby for 2-3 hours. Bet her mom or a sister is there with her. Most of us think the baby was not born in the last week. After several weeks with a newborn, I'd be happy to get dressed up and out of the house for an evening, too. That leaves a whole lot of hours with the baby.

But do I think they're fame hungry? Sure.

It’s not her movie so she wasn’t working

Every red carpet appearance is work for her.

She wasn’t in the movie, no need to attend

You don't seem to grasp how celebrity works.

Or you don’t grasp how parenting works

DP. What about parenting would preclude someone with a few weeks old baby from going and doing something for a few hours in the afternoon? If she's breastfeeding, she can pump before she leaves and even pump while she's there if necessary (they are rich and can make sure there's a private space available for that). I'm sure they have a nanny. Her family is local and they seem close, so I would also actually assume her mom or sister could stay with the baby for something like this. You take a car to the event, walk the red carpet, take photos, maybe stay for a little bit to socialize, then go home.

This is extremely normal. I was in a mom support group when my baby was this age and several of the women in our group would sometimes leave their babies home (with nannies or family) just to get a couple hours break for mental health reasons. I don't see what the issue is at all.

There is no issue. I think posters were mainly confused about the age of the baby. She definitely had not given birth just a couple days before.

Sounds like she had the baby 2 weeks before premiere. Clearly work and PR is more important to her than the baby.

Do you think anyone who spends 3 or 4 hours away from their baby at that age is a bad mom?

Or does this one just make you mad because she spent that time on a red carpet? If she's gone to a cafe with a friend, gotten her nails done, seen a therapist, etc , would all that be equally upsetting to you?

Most parental leave allows 6-12 weeks in US. It’s not to go out and party.

And yet you are allowed to leave the house for a few hours.

[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:Shameful it’s more important to look for fame than to look after your own kid. Pretty sure we know how this kid will turn out in 20 years.

Oh come on, let's not shame a working mother. The event was in town. They were probably away from the baby for 2-3 hours. Bet her mom or a sister is there with her. Most of us think the baby was not born in the last week. After several weeks with a newborn, I'd be happy to get dressed up and out of the house for an evening, too. That leaves a whole lot of hours with the baby.

But do I think they're fame hungry? Sure.

It’s not her movie so she wasn’t working

Every red carpet appearance is work for her.

She wasn’t in the movie, no need to attend

You don't seem to grasp how celebrity works.

Or you don’t grasp how parenting works

DP. What about parenting would preclude someone with a few weeks old baby from going and doing something for a few hours in the afternoon? If she's breastfeeding, she can pump before she leaves and even pump while she's there if necessary (they are rich and can make sure there's a private space available for that). I'm sure they have a nanny. Her family is local and they seem close, so I would also actually assume her mom or sister could stay with the baby for something like this. You take a car to the event, walk the red carpet, take photos, maybe stay for a little bit to socialize, then go home.

This is extremely normal. I was in a mom support group when my baby was this age and several of the women in our group would sometimes leave their babies home (with nannies or family) just to get a couple hours break for mental health reasons. I don't see what the issue is at all.

There is no issue. I think posters were mainly confused about the age of the baby. She definitely had not given birth just a couple days before.

Sounds like she had the baby 2 weeks before premiere. Clearly work and PR is more important to her than the baby.

Do you think anyone who spends 3 or 4 hours away from their baby at that age is a bad mom?

Or does this one just make you mad because she spent that time on a red carpet? If she's gone to a cafe with a friend, gotten her nails done, seen a therapist, etc , would all that be equally upsetting to you?

Most parental leave allows 6-12 weeks in US. It’s not to go out and party.

She didn't go out and party. Do you see photos of her "partying"? She got her hair and makeup done (likely at home), put on a comfortable dress, rode in a car to a theater, and then stood on a carpet with her husband and took some photos. That's it.

When my kid was a few weeks old, I was sometimes meeting friends for lunch (with and without the baby, depending on childcare options), I went to the movies a couple times, I'd go for walks. The only reason her activity is any different than mine is that it is more public, with photos that wind up in international media. But that's because she's a celebrity married to a celebrity and I am not. Frankly I do not envy any woman whose work and marriage impose an expectation that she pose for paparazzi photos shortly after giving birth. This is honestly not much different than when Kate Middleton had her kids and had to get dressed up and pose for photos outside the hospital shortly after giving birth so the public could see the baby. In this case, Nicole is showing her industry that she she still looks good and is recovering. It's all kind of gross but I don't blame the women involved or consider what they are doing "partying" or some kind of abandonment of their children.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:Shameful it’s more important to look for fame than to look after your own kid. Pretty sure we know how this kid will turn out in 20 years.

Oh come on, let's not shame a working mother. The event was in town. They were probably away from the baby for 2-3 hours. Bet her mom or a sister is there with her. Most of us think the baby was not born in the last week. After several weeks with a newborn, I'd be happy to get dressed up and out of the house for an evening, too. That leaves a whole lot of hours with the baby.

But do I think they're fame hungry? Sure.

It’s not her movie so she wasn’t working

Every red carpet appearance is work for her.

She wasn’t in the movie, no need to attend

You don't seem to grasp how celebrity works.

Or you don’t grasp how parenting works

DP. What about parenting would preclude someone with a few weeks old baby from going and doing something for a few hours in the afternoon? If she's breastfeeding, she can pump before she leaves and even pump while she's there if necessary (they are rich and can make sure there's a private space available for that). I'm sure they have a nanny. Her family is local and they seem close, so I would also actually assume her mom or sister could stay with the baby for something like this. You take a car to the event, walk the red carpet, take photos, maybe stay for a little bit to socialize, then go home.

This is extremely normal. I was in a mom support group when my baby was this age and several of the women in our group would sometimes leave their babies home (with nannies or family) just to get a couple hours break for mental health reasons. I don't see what the issue is at all.

There is no issue. I think posters were mainly confused about the age of the baby. She definitely had not given birth just a couple days before.

Sounds like she had the baby 2 weeks before premiere. Clearly work and PR is more important to her than the baby.

Do you think anyone who spends 3 or 4 hours away from their baby at that age is a bad mom?

Or does this one just make you mad because she spent that time on a red carpet? If she's gone to a cafe with a friend, gotten her nails done, seen a therapist, etc , would all that be equally upsetting to you?

Most parental leave allows 6-12 weeks in US. It’s not to go out and party.

And yet you are allowed to leave the house for a few hours.

and usually with the baby or hubby at home with baby.

[Anonymous]

In 16 years he will be 70 and she will be 47. I cannot imagine being with a 70 year old at my age (which is 47). So gross!

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Shameful it’s more important to look for fame than to look after your own kid. Pretty sure we know how this kid will turn out in 20 years.

Oh come on, let's not shame a working mother. The event was in town. They were probably away from the baby for 2-3 hours. Bet her mom or a sister is there with her. Most of us think the baby was not born in the last week. After several weeks with a newborn, I'd be happy to get dressed up and out of the house for an evening, too. That leaves a whole lot of hours with the baby.

But do I think they're fame hungry? Sure.

It’s not her movie so she wasn’t working

Every red carpet appearance is work for her.

She wasn’t in the movie, no need to attend

You don't seem to grasp how celebrity works.

Or you don’t grasp how parenting works

DP. What about parenting would preclude someone with a few weeks old baby from going and doing something for a few hours in the afternoon? If she's breastfeeding, she can pump before she leaves and even pump while she's there if necessary (they are rich and can make sure there's a private space available for that). I'm sure they have a nanny. Her family is local and they seem close, so I would also actually assume her mom or sister could stay with the baby for something like this. You take a car to the event, walk the red carpet, take photos, maybe stay for a little bit to socialize, then go home.

This is extremely normal. I was in a mom support group when my baby was this age and several of the women in our group would sometimes leave their babies home (with nannies or family) just to get a couple hours break for mental health reasons. I don't see what the issue is at all.

There is no issue. I think posters were mainly confused about the age of the baby. She definitely had not given birth just a couple days before.

Sounds like she had the baby 2 weeks before premiere. Clearly work and PR is more important to her than the baby.

Do you think anyone who spends 3 or 4 hours away from their baby at that age is a bad mom?

Or does this one just make you mad because she spent that time on a red carpet? If she's gone to a cafe with a friend, gotten her nails done, seen a therapist, etc , would all that be equally upsetting to you?

Most parental leave allows 6-12 weeks in US. It’s not to go out and party.

And yet you are allowed to leave the house for a few hours.

and usually with the baby or hubby at home with baby.

It is totally normal for a couple to leave their baby with a trusted caregiver for a few hours while they go out for a meal or something. My spouse and I left our baby with my mom around the same age so we could go out for an anniversary dinner. The baby slept pretty much the entire time, I pumped before we went, it was just no big deal.

It can also be beneficial if you've hired a nanny or if a grandparent is around and going to be providing care for the child. It allows the baby to bond with that caregiver in a way they can't if a parent is around. Obviously most time will be spent with mom and dad, but it's perfectly healthy at this age for a baby to spend time with another caregiver for a few hours (also good for mom and dad mental health to get a break and realize they have a village -- it's not healthy for parents to feel totally isolated during this time).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In 16 years he will be 70 and she will be 47. I cannot imagine being with a 70 year old at my age (which is 47). So gross!

Not what I would want either but not really considered weird for Hollywood. Jeff Goldblum is 30 years older than his wife and they had their two kids when he was in his early 60s.

Howard Stern (who is a friend of Justin's and was at their wedding) is 19 years older than his wife. They don't have kids but Howard has three daughters from a prior marriage and his oldest daughter is only 9 years younger than his current wife -- the look more like sisters than step mom/daughter.

Carrie Coon, Justin's Leftovers costar, is 45 (my age), and is married to Tracy Letts, who is 60. They have two kids under 10, so both born when Tracy was in his 50s. The only difference is that Carrie was older than Nicole when she had her kids.

And on and on. Big age differences are very common in Hollywood. It's also common for male actors to have kids in their 50s (or 60s). Not uncommon for some 70+ actor to be married to a woman who is late 40s or early 50s. It's weird for UMC people in DC but not weird for Hollywood people.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Shameful it’s more important to look for fame than to look after your own kid. Pretty sure we know how this kid will turn out in 20 years.

Oh come on, let's not shame a working mother. The event was in town. They were probably away from the baby for 2-3 hours. Bet her mom or a sister is there with her. Most of us think the baby was not born in the last week. After several weeks with a newborn, I'd be happy to get dressed up and out of the house for an evening, too. That leaves a whole lot of hours with the baby.

But do I think they're fame hungry? Sure.

It’s not her movie so she wasn’t working

Every red carpet appearance is work for her.

She wasn’t in the movie, no need to attend

You don't seem to grasp how celebrity works.

Or you don’t grasp how parenting works

DP. What about parenting would preclude someone with a few weeks old baby from going and doing something for a few hours in the afternoon? If she's breastfeeding, she can pump before she leaves and even pump while she's there if necessary (they are rich and can make sure there's a private space available for that). I'm sure they have a nanny. Her family is local and they seem close, so I would also actually assume her mom or sister could stay with the baby for something like this. You take a car to the event, walk the red carpet, take photos, maybe stay for a little bit to socialize, then go home.

This is extremely normal. I was in a mom support group when my baby was this age and several of the women in our group would sometimes leave their babies home (with nannies or family) just to get a couple hours break for mental health reasons. I don't see what the issue is at all.

There is no issue. I think posters were mainly confused about the age of the baby. She definitely had not given birth just a couple days before.

Sounds like she had the baby 2 weeks before premiere. Clearly work and PR is more important to her than the baby.

Do you think anyone who spends 3 or 4 hours away from their baby at that age is a bad mom?

Or does this one just make you mad because she spent that time on a red carpet? If she's gone to a cafe with a friend, gotten her nails done, seen a therapist, etc , would all that be equally upsetting to you?

Most parental leave allows 6-12 weeks in US. It’s not to go out and party.

And yet you are allowed to leave the house for a few hours.

and usually with the baby or hubby at home with baby.

It is totally normal for a couple to leave their baby with a trusted caregiver for a few hours while they go out for a meal or something. My spouse and I left our baby with my mom around the same age so we could go out for an anniversary dinner. The baby slept pretty much the entire time, I pumped before we went, it was just no big deal.

It can also be beneficial if you've hired a nanny or if a grandparent is around and going to be providing care for the child. It allows the baby to bond with that caregiver in a way they can't if a parent is around. Obviously most time will be spent with mom and dad, but it's perfectly healthy at this age for a baby to spend time with another caregiver for a few hours (also good for mom and dad mental health to get a break and realize they have a village -- it's not healthy for parents to feel totally isolated during this time).

Not a newborn who is exclusively breastfeeding and is less than a month old, no. Mom needs to be nearby to feed. Obviously if she’s got him hooked on the bottle already it doesn’t matter. In my case, my daughter never was able to take to a bottle so I quite literally couldn’t go anywhere without her as a newborn until feedings were much more spaced out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In 16 years he will be 70 and she will be 47. I cannot imagine being with a 70 year old at my age (which is 47). So gross!

There are millions and millions of women that will choose a successful older man who at least tries to look good and works out and takes good care of themselves.

Like it or not, we still live in a society where men are expected to be successful and good looking - and there aren't a lot of them. Minuscule numbers. Supply and demand. I'm sure there are a gazillion women that would be happy to get involved with Justin Theroux. Not everyone wants to get involved with some 30 year old Peter Pan with terrible habits.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In 16 years he will be 70 and she will be 47. I cannot imagine being with a 70 year old at my age (which is 47). So gross!

There are millions and millions of women that will choose a successful older man who at least tries to look good and works out and takes good care of themselves.

Like it or not, we still live in a society where men are expected to be successful and good looking - and there aren't a lot of them. Minuscule numbers. Supply and demand. I'm sure there are a gazillion women that would be happy to get involved with Justin Theroux. Not everyone wants to get involved with some 30 year old Peter Pan with terrible habits.

You’re acting as if these are the only two choices. there are actually a few mote. 1 is to stay alone because no thanks and the obvious other one is to find a good guy closer to your age. They do exist. I don’t believe Nicole has a very high bar if she chose a serial cheater who has a history of dating teens in his 40s. Sorry, but no.

All people are pointing out with the 20 year look ahead is that there is an ocean between early 50s and early 70s. It is much wider and much different than the difference between early 30s and early 50s.