Angelina Jolie, breastless

[merithyn]

My attitude hasn't changed at all.

Me either. To be fair to Angelina though--she was already famous and rich. She isn't using this situation to create an activism career for herself.

So you still believe that it's stupid to get a double mastectomy when you're looking at a 65% (or in this case, 87%) chance of getting a deadly form of breast cancer?

I suppose it's a good thing that you'll never have to make that decision.

[garbon]

My attitude hasn't changed at all.

Me either. To be fair to Angelina though--she was already famous and rich. She isn't using this situation to create an activism career for herself.

She created the activism career long ago.

[Martinus]

I'm hoping that she's also planning to [snip] have her ovaries removed

Well she might just as well go the full hog.

[Martinus]

Brad Pitt's like, wait, WTF?

It really must suck to be him. He is arguably one of the sexiest men alive and when he started dating Angelina, she used to be hot. Since then she turned into a breast-less monster/skeletor.

I'd pick Jolie over Pitt any day.

I wouldn't. Btw, have you ever considered that rather than being gay you are in fact a bitchy black lesbian?

[Martinus]

Kinda like walking around with blinders though as the world becomes what you label it.

@V - I don't think that's what I look like when offended.

Really?  Being confused why I do not find Angelina Jolie sexy is the same as walking around with blinders on labeling everything?

That's not what that comment was in reference to.

I did not mean that seriously and I know that was not what you were getting at and I should not have said it.  I do not put you and all gay men in a little box.  That did not accurately reflect my worldview.

Stop being such a pussy and get this intimidated/bullied by our resident nancy. I like Jolie as a person but yes she is androgynous and a lot of straight guys are apparently saying the same as you do.

[garbon]

Brad Pitt's like, wait, WTF?

It really must suck to be him. He is arguably one of the sexiest men alive and when he started dating Angelina, she used to be hot. Since then she turned into a breast-less monster/skeletor.

I'd pick Jolie over Pitt any day.

I wouldn't. Btw, have you ever considered that rather than being gay you are in fact a bitchy black lesbian?

Well I don't have a vagina and to-date have only slept with men so I'm thinking no.

[garbon]

Kinda like walking around with blinders though as the world becomes what you label it.

@V - I don't think that's what I look like when offended.

Really?  Being confused why I do not find Angelina Jolie sexy is the same as walking around with blinders on labeling everything?

That's not what that comment was in reference to.

I did not mean that seriously and I know that was not what you were getting at and I should not have said it.  I do not put you and all gay men in a little box.  That did not accurately reflect my worldview.

Stop being such a pussy and get this intimidated/bullied by our resident nancy. I like Jolie as a person but yes she is androgynous and a lot of straight guys are apparently saying the same as you do.

So what's that make you? The fat troll looking to trick a drunk youth?

[Martinus]

Kinda like walking around with blinders though as the world becomes what you label it.

@V - I don't think that's what I look like when offended.

Really?  Being confused why I do not find Angelina Jolie sexy is the same as walking around with blinders on labeling everything?

That's not what that comment was in reference to.

I did not mean that seriously and I know that was not what you were getting at and I should not have said it.  I do not put you and all gay men in a little box.  That did not accurately reflect my worldview.

Stop being such a pussy and get this intimidated/bullied by our resident nancy. I like Jolie as a person but yes she is androgynous and a lot of straight guys are apparently saying the same as you do.

So what's that make you? The fat troll looking to trick a drunk youth?

Ooh oh them are fighting words. But yes, you are a bully, using thinly veiled accusations of homophobia/misogyny/racism (delete as appropriate) to get your way around here. Valmy is possibly the least hateful/non-politically-correct person here (hell, if he lacks anything it's backbone and willingness to troll Merri with the rest of us) yet you are latching onto him as if he said something horrible.

[garbon]

Get my way around here? I think you should set down your glass of red wine w/ice.

[11B4V]

My attitude hasn't changed at all.

Me either. To be fair to Angelina though--she was already famous and rich. She isn't using this situation to create an activism career for herself.

So you still believe that it's stupid to get a double mastectomy when you're looking at a 65% (or in this case, 87%) chance of getting a deadly form of breast cancer?

I suppose it's a good thing that you'll never have to make that decision.

I have refrained from commenting till all the facts are in.


Their her tits. *shrugs*

[MadImmortalMan]

My attitude hasn't changed at all.

Me either. To be fair to Angelina though--she was already famous and rich. She isn't using this situation to create an activism career for herself.

So you still believe that it's stupid to get a double mastectomy when you're looking at a 65% (or in this case, 87%) chance of getting a deadly form of breast cancer?

I suppose it's a good thing that you'll never have to make that decision.

If it's 65% then I think it's stupid. If it's 87% then I don't. That other girl said her doctors told her 50-50 and she would be all right just monitoring it. If your chances are approaching 90% then it's a bit foregone. Also Jolie still waited until she was nearly 40. She took reasonable risk.

Doing it in your early 20s when your doctors tell you it's a toss-up just because you want to get your face in a magazine, yeah that's stupid.


Edit: Out of curiosity, what's the threshold you would pick? Would you have some body part removed pre-emptively if there were a 20% chance of developing cancer there? I mean the solution to the cancer is removing the body part anyway. But surgery itself is not without risk, so why risk it until the danger is obvious?

[DGuller]

Jolie is probably the only mainstream hot woman I do not get.  There is something oddly androgynous about her to me that I cannot get over...weird I know (though that might explain garbon wanting her).  I recognize she is a beautiful person but not sexy.

I don't get her hotness either.  I don't even find her attractive, much less hot.

[Fate]

My attitude hasn't changed at all.

Me either. To be fair to Angelina though--she was already famous and rich. She isn't using this situation to create an activism career for herself.

So you still believe that it's stupid to get a double mastectomy when you're looking at a 65% (or in this case, 87%) chance of getting a deadly form of breast cancer?

I suppose it's a good thing that you'll never have to make that decision.

If it's 65% then I think it's stupid. If it's 87% then I don't. That other girl said her doctors told her 50-50 and she would be all right just monitoring it. If your chances are approaching 90% then it's a bit foregone. Also Jolie still waited until she was nearly 40. She took reasonable risk.

Doing it in your early 20s when your doctors tell you it's a toss-up just because you want to get your face in a magazine, yeah that's stupid.


Edit: Out of curiosity, what's the threshold you would pick? Would you have some body part removed pre-emptively if there were a 20% chance of developing cancer there? I mean the solution to the cancer is removing the body part anyway. But surgery itself is not without risk, so why risk it until the danger is obvious?

Pray tell, what's the smart decision at a 65% lifetime rate? Wait until you (likely) get cancer? Why is waiting to 40 the smart move? 

The general population's lifetime rate of breast cancer is 7%. BRCA increases that lifetime risk to 50%-85% depending on your precise mutation genetics and other risk factors. People with BRCA are about 0.1% of the population. This is not something done in everyone. Mammograms are far from able to detect all cancers in their early stages. Every relevant medical society involved in this disease believes prophylactic bilateral mastectomy is a reasonable option that patients may request. The risks of surgery are minimal. Mortality is greatly lowered in BRCA patients who undergo surgery versus those who don't.

[derspiess]

But it was all good when Meri was flinging about "nancy" as an insult?

I didn't intend to insult you, garbon. I'm sorry if it did.

[merithyn]

If it's 65% then I think it's stupid. If it's 87% then I don't. That other girl said her doctors told her 50-50 and she would be all right just monitoring it. If your chances are approaching 90% then it's a bit foregone. Also Jolie still waited until she was nearly 40. She took reasonable risk.

Doing it in your early 20s when your doctors tell you it's a toss-up just because you want to get your face in a magazine, yeah that's stupid.

I remembered her at 65% from the article, but regardless, that's kind of her call to make, isn't it? Given that it's her life and all. By announcing her plans, she, like Angelina Jolie, opened the topic for discussions. I don't care if she's splashed across 18 magazines. I'm all for opening discussions.

Edit: Out of curiosity, what's the threshold you would pick? Would you have some body part removed pre-emptively if there were a 20% chance of developing cancer there? I mean the solution to the cancer is removing the body part anyway. But surgery itself is not without risk, so why risk it until the danger is obvious?

I think I mentioned that I'm at a 50/50 chance for breast cancer due to my family history of breast cancer and my personal history of ovarian cancer. (I underwent a complete hysterectomy for that 13 years ago.) I waffle on where I stand on this for myself, but I have a very different set of circumstances to either of the women we've been talking about. I've already undergone 13 surgeries in my lifetime, six of them hip-to-hip open-cavity surgeries within a 10-year period. Any discussion of surgery to me is going to make me flinch. I'm also over 40, which means that mammograms are more effective at this stage.

If my doctor told me tomorrow that I had a 65% chance of something like bladder cancer (basically, a recurrence of the ovarian cancer that's spread), I would probably opt to have it taken out. That's a lot more radical than the breasts, because now you're talking about a catheter bag for life. But you know, I'd rather have a pee-bag than die. And a 65% chance of dying just isn't worth it to me.

At 50/50, I don't know what I'd do. Probably wait a bit because I really, really don't want another surgery. At the same time, I don't know how long I'd wait because, well, cancer scares me. Especially something like the ovarian cancer, that's so aggressive and so deadly. I dodged a bullet once. I'm not sure I'm up for playing tag with another one.