Anonymous wrote:The egg freezing technology began in 1896, and by 2000 it was widely available.

Janet Jackson talked about it during a 2008 interview.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like Jen...I'm rooting for her. I do think the photos were a little ridiculous and her face looked overdone with plastic surgery or too much correcting on the photos.

I'm glad to see this is the last print edition of Allure - I think it signals the end of an era where there are a million covers of heavily photoshopped women. Now I rarely see magazines unless I'm in the airport seeking them out. I mean I know social media is out there but still feels like progress that this particular form of print media which really tortured me in my teens and 20s is dead.

I don't think the media would have been that obsessed with her having a baby if it wasn't for the Brad Pitt very public divorce with he saying he wanted to start a family and then immediately having 6 kids with another huge superstar.

I don't think people really obsessed about Sandra Bullock not having kids before she adopted...no one cares that Chelsea Handler doesn't have kids and she is very public about not wanting them.

Jen and team not happy about with cover. Said they photoshopped her face to look like JLO (per Deuxmoi)

Baloney. No way Aniston doesn't have final photo approval.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How brave of her to come forward with this story. Years of not good enough to be a real woman and the perception by most if you miscarriage or can’t have children you’re not a woman.

This incredible, beautiful, sexy, strong woman tells her story.

How much longer with this obsession with being "sexy", it's really ridiculous.

She might be asexual or frigid. Plenty of women lose their drive in their 40s.

She seems like a workaholic desperate to remain relevant.

If I had her money, I’d retire and dabble in charity.

She seems to prefer to be naked on magazine covers which is an obvious strategy to boost interest and preserve her brand. She’s clearly focused on making money through her various ventures. That’s fine. Her choice. But she’s neither a victim nor a martyr.

I can't figure out why she does so many commercials. She has enough money and power to be selective in what she does. I understand the desire to work and create characters, which she's still able to do (has a current show and is in movies), but surely commercials don't offer much creative satisfaction.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s a nice article and she looks great. I love the dog. I do hate how actresses feel the need to do these almost naked photo shoots to prove they still got it. I wish that we didn’t require women to strip down to nothingness to show their power and pride. I’d rather just see her in her tank top and ripped jeans that she was wearing for the interview, rather than a weird designer g string.

She also manages to not trash any of her exes, so points to her for being classy.

I haven't read the article yet, but I said something similar about her years ago: that she needs to stop posing naked or nearly naked. There's no reason to do that. We all know she has a great body.

Heck, if I had a body like that I'd stand naked in the freezer section of the local supermarket.

But seriously, she can do whatever she wants with her body. She's also pragmatic and knows roles at her age are tough to come by in a Hollywood (and society) that exalts youth above all else. Retaining the "hot" label helps, as other actresses like Halle Berry also know. Let's critique the patriarchal structures that perpetuate this, not the women who merely are savvy about navigating it to their advantage.

Maybe those women are helping perpetuate that patriarchal structure when they could be helping change it.

Exactly.

“I’m really happy that we got to experience growing up, being a teenager, being in our 20s without this social media aspect,” she says. “Look, the internet, great intentions, right? Connect people socially, social networking. It goes back to how young girls feel about themselves, compare and despair."

Also here's a picture of me in a g-string.

This all GD day. UGH.

I am sure Aniston is a fine person. She dealt with her first divorce with a lot of toughness, because back in the Kitson t-shirt era, Pitt and Jolie put out consistent, ludicrous press with a caaareffulll timeline about when they started screwing in order to not try to harm their own reputations. Perhaps Aniston was trying to conceive then; no one else’s business, but its hard to imagine how anyone wouldn’t feel defensive over having to combat particularly cruel, misogynistic press outright saying that she must have refused to have kids thus deserved global humiliation and personal betrayal. That’s beyond what I can imagine and I think that would have outright broken many people.

But this dance around baby! Tried for baby! I’m better in my 30s! No 40s! No 50s! Hey, man, be cool, respect my privacy! But maybe I was like trying back in my Living Proof days to be a mamma! What about my privacy, screw you, Architectural Digest is gonna photograph my homes! My relationships with my good parent and my evil mom are no one’s biz ok? — how is all of that not a star ginning up her audience to tell them whatever they’re credulous to believe so that they’ll watch some insipid shit she’s in with Adam Sandler? That’s all it is. She dissembles and outright lies as much as anyone in her business does, she creates a fantasy on top of what in black and white an amazing reality (wealth, success, good looks and health).

I just find it fascinating and sad and also obnoxious. I have PCOS and I know about fertility stuff. No one is required to be a mom, or to say whether they have misgivings. But she’s so shady and it's annoying AF to see people defending the honor of Aniston and show how dumb they are. No, no one hid egg freezing from a now 53 year old in when was in any part of her 30s or 40s. No, she owes no one that timeline, but the way she and her PR deploy it is depressing as hell. And no, there’s nothing inspiring, honest (intellectually or emotionally) about bemoaning the pressures on girls and women by social media while showing side-ass and maybe-tit in order to deliberately engender a bunch of “wow! Hot at 53! Look at how hot you can be at 53!!!’ press. No.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s a nice article and she looks great. I love the dog. I do hate how actresses feel the need to do these almost naked photo shoots to prove they still got it. I wish that we didn’t require women to strip down to nothingness to show their power and pride. I’d rather just see her in her tank top and ripped jeans that she was wearing for the interview, rather than a weird designer g string.

She also manages to not trash any of her exes, so points to her for being classy.

I haven't read the article yet, but I said something similar about her years ago: that she needs to stop posing naked or nearly naked. There's no reason to do that. We all know she has a great body.

Heck, if I had a body like that I'd stand naked in the freezer section of the local supermarket.

But seriously, she can do whatever she wants with her body. She's also pragmatic and knows roles at her age are tough to come by in a Hollywood (and society) that exalts youth above all else. Retaining the "hot" label helps, as other actresses like Halle Berry also know. Let's critique the patriarchal structures that perpetuate this, not the women who merely are savvy about navigating it to their advantage.

Maybe those women are helping perpetuate that patriarchal structure when they could be helping change it.

Exactly.

“I’m really happy that we got to experience growing up, being a teenager, being in our 20s without this social media aspect,” she says. “Look, the internet, great intentions, right? Connect people socially, social networking. It goes back to how young girls feel about themselves, compare and despair."

Also here's a picture of me in a g-string.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like Jen...I'm rooting for her. I do think the photos were a little ridiculous and her face looked overdone with plastic surgery or too much correcting on the photos.

I'm glad to see this is the last print edition of Allure - I think it signals the end of an era where there are a million covers of heavily photoshopped women. Now I rarely see magazines unless I'm in the airport seeking them out. I mean I know social media is out there but still feels like progress that this particular form of print media which really tortured me in my teens and 20s is dead.

I don't think the media would have been that obsessed with her having a baby if it wasn't for the Brad Pitt very public divorce with he saying he wanted to start a family and then immediately having 6 kids with another huge superstar.

I don't think people really obsessed about Sandra Bullock not having kids before she adopted...no one cares that Chelsea Handler doesn't have kids and she is very public about not wanting them.

Jen and team not happy about with cover. Said they photoshopped her face to look like JLO (per Deuxmoi)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How brave of her to come forward with this story. Years of not good enough to be a real woman and the perception by most if you miscarriage or can’t have children you’re not a woman.

This incredible, beautiful, sexy, strong woman tells her story.

How much longer with this obsession with being "sexy", it's really ridiculous.

She might be asexual or frigid. Plenty of women lose their drive in their 40s.

She seems like a workaholic desperate to remain relevant.

If I had her money, I’d retire and dabble in charity.

She seems to prefer to be naked on magazine covers which is an obvious strategy to boost interest and preserve her brand. She’s clearly focused on making money through her various ventures. That’s fine. Her choice. But she’s neither a victim nor a martyr.

I can't figure out why she does so many commercials. She has enough money and power to be selective in what she does. I understand the desire to work and create characters, which she's still able to do (has a current show and is in movies), but surely commercials don't offer much creative satisfaction.

Anonymous wrote:I like Jen...I'm rooting for her. I do think the photos were a little ridiculous and her face looked overdone with plastic surgery or too much correcting on the photos.

I'm glad to see this is the last print edition of Allure - I think it signals the end of an era where there are a million covers of heavily photoshopped women. Now I rarely see magazines unless I'm in the airport seeking them out. I mean I know social media is out there but still feels like progress that this particular form of print media which really tortured me in my teens and 20s is dead.

I don't think the media would have been that obsessed with her having a baby if it wasn't for the Brad Pitt very public divorce with he saying he wanted to start a family and then immediately having 6 kids with another huge superstar.

I don't think people really obsessed about Sandra Bullock not having kids before she adopted...no one cares that Chelsea Handler doesn't have kids and she is very public about not wanting them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How brave of her to come forward with this story. Years of not good enough to be a real woman and the perception by most if you miscarriage or can’t have children you’re not a woman.

This incredible, beautiful, sexy, strong woman tells her story.

How much longer with this obsession with being "sexy", it's really ridiculous.

She might be asexual or frigid. Plenty of women lose their drive in their 40s.

She seems like a workaholic desperate to remain relevant.

If I had her money, I’d retire and dabble in charity.

She seems to prefer to be naked on magazine covers which is an obvious strategy to boost interest and preserve her brand. She’s clearly focused on making money through her various ventures. That’s fine. Her choice. But she’s neither a victim nor a martyr.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How brave of her to come forward with this story. Years of not good enough to be a real woman and the perception by most if you miscarriage or can’t have children you’re not a woman.

This incredible, beautiful, sexy, strong woman tells her story.

?

It’s 2022.

Literally nobody judges a woman for miscarrying. Nobody.

And the vast majority of people don’t judge women who opt not to have a baby…as long as they own it.

She never owned it. She played the media. That’s fine.

+1 she’s a complete phony. “I never thought to freeze my eggs.” Really?! What a crock of sh#t! She just never wanted kids. She could adopt, or use a surrogate. I’m beginning to wonder if she’s a lesbian.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How brave of her to come forward with this story. Years of not good enough to be a real woman and the perception by most if you miscarriage or can’t have children you’re not a woman.

This incredible, beautiful, sexy, strong woman tells her story.

How much longer with this obsession with being "sexy", it's really ridiculous.