read this article.
http://entertainment.msn.com/celebs/...px?news=152116
Printable View
read this article.
http://entertainment.msn.com/celebs/...px?news=152116
Wow, I really really don't care. That's her business, her morals, her life. Not ours. The only part that bothers me is that the media felt the need to tell us.
>>> First time i hear about this woman..
I have to agree. Completely.Quote:
Originally posted by TheAbominatrix
Wow, I really really don't care. That's her business, her morals, her life. Not ours. The only part that bothers me is that the media felt the need to tell us.
the only thing though is that she really should be smarter than that when she has a kid at home. A mother who goes sleeping around in hotel rooms with more than a few different guys does not sound like a very responsible parent to me.
Guess what? It's her own choice to sleep with whoever she wants to. It doesn't make her a bad parent, either, as long as she doesn't neglect her children because of it.
People are all too quick to judge these days.
Who?Quote:
angelina jolie
Yes, I don't have the need to care about this :p
actually I have to disagree with you a little bit on that one. It may not make her a bad parent. But it does make her a little bit of an irresponsible parent.
The fact that she does sleep around shows that she does not have her son and her son's future at the best interest of heart.
How does her sleeping around have anything to do with her interests for her children? The two are completely unrelated.Quote:
Originally posted by darkchrono
The fact that she does sleep around shows that she does not have her son and her son's future at the best interest of heart.
I like how they call Aaron Carter a 'puberty pin-up' in the following article.
Well how would you feel for starters if you found out one of your parents was sleeping around in hotel rooms with alot of different guys or girls.
The fact is. When you become a parent you become responsible for more than just your own life.
Sleeping around can become a very dangerous way to live (especially in the adult world when people are not innocent young highschool or college kids any longer)
What if she caught something and got sick. Then what would her kid do. What if she slept with the wrong person who would end up harming her or her son. Then what would her kid do.
There are alot of different scenario's that could take place that could potentially harm the well-bearing of her kid.
No. Doing those things does not show that she doesn't possess the ability to love her child. But it does kind of show that maybe she is not quite grown up enough herself to raise a child.
And kids are not very good at raising kids. Especially kids with money.
So if she were going to the library instead of a hotel, she'd be a responsible parent? If she's gone she's gone, the kid doesnt know what she's doing, kid doesnt need to know. I'm sure she has a nanny (I only skimmed the article, it was annoying) watching the kid.
So, any parent who leaves their kid for a few hours for any reason is a bad parent? Or just if they're going to have sex?
The bottom line is: If you don't like Angelina Joline having sex in hotel rooms, then don't have sex with Angelina Joline in hotel rooms. It's that simple.
The actions that you partake in will have a giant effect on the well-bearing of your kid.
And yes, leaving your kid to go to the library would be much better than to go to a hotel room and have sex with guy #3
No, it wouldn't. Because it's all the same to the kid. If the kid doesn't know, then who cares? Joline needs some excitement in her life so she goes and gets it. It wouldn't be any different if she went to parties or McDonald's or China. I'm sure she takes care of her kid otherwise.
Exactly.Quote:
Originally posted by Spaceman Spiff
The bottom line is: If you don't like Angelina Joline having sex in hotel rooms, then don't have sex with Angelina Joline in hotel rooms. It's that simple.
And, once again, darkchrono's logic makes no sense, and this will be argued to the death. Fun!
Spaceman won't you go around and ask a couple mothers of small kids if they think sleeping around with alot of different guys when they have a kid at home is very responsible. Or shows that they have their kid at the best interest of heart and see what they say.
And abominatrix my logic is right on.
What your opinions show is that you are lacking in parental instincts.
Is going to the library and leaving the kid at home better? The kid is still alone at home.
So you're basically saying that she should be with her kid at all time? I don't get it.Quote:
Originally posted by darkchrono
Spaceman won't you go around and ask a couple mothers of small kids if they think sleeping around with alot of different guys when they have a kid at home is very responsible. Or shows that they have their kid at the best interest of heart and see what they say.
And abominatrix my logic is right on.
What your opinions show is that you are lacking in parental instincts.
You're talking about morality here. Different people have different morals. This isn't a responsibility issue. It's a morality issue.
You are getting my argument all wrong here.
I am not implying she should be with her kid at all times.
What I am saying is that her actions directly effect her childs life no matter what she does.
When you have a kid again you become responsible for more than just your own life. And when you continue to live a pemiscous life like that it does not show a very high responsibility level towards your kid.
Your logic is so tweaked it's hilarious.
I wish I had made friends with her when I had the chance... :cry:
explain to me how my logic is tweaked abominatrix.
Once you tell me that I will tell you how you are severely lacking in parental insticts.
You make me laugh.
lol, you guys stink at arguing
What they don't know won't affect them. And believe me, they won't know.Quote:
Originally posted by darkchrono
Well how would you feel for starters if you found out one of your parents was sleeping around in hotel rooms with alot of different guys or girls.
Oh no, and I suppose you'll go on to tell me that driving can be very dangerous to your health if you get in a car accident. If she's smart, she's using protection, and the risks of getting pregnant or an STI when you're using protection properly are negligible. So is the risk of getting struck by lightning. It's all part of life.Quote:
Sleeping around can become a very dangerous way to live (especially in the adult world when people are not innocent young highschool or college kids any longer)
Probably the exact same thing that her kid would do if she caught an illness of some other sort and got sick: Deal with it.Quote:
What if she caught something and got sick. Then what would her kid do.
Yes, right, I'm quite sure that some random person she sleeps with in a hotel room is going to have access to her humongous mansion (I'm making a blatant assumption here, but go with the flow) and go molest her children. Like that's likely.Quote:
What if she slept with the wrong person who would end up harming her or her son. Then what would her kid do.
The rest of your post and everything you've posted since then doesn't even make sense.
Why should we argue with you? You repeat the same argument over and over again.
Your logic is tweaked because, for some reason, it's perfectly alright to leave your child alone as long as you're going somewhere wholesome. Adults having sex doesnt effect the child if the child is never exposed to it. As I've said before. If I were to have sex, would it effect anyone but me and my partner? Sure, if I were to get a life-threatening disease. But not if I take precautions.
And if something happens like, say, Ms. Jolie gets pregnant, she can more than afford to have two children. I really don't see what bad things can come of it, especially with someone who has bodyguards.
By the logic that she could possibly get a disease, well everyday she gets into a car she could have an accident and die. So therefore she shouldnt drive, because her death would leave the kid as an orphan once more. She shouldnt do movies with any stunts, lest she hurt herself. And so on.
But it's okay if she leaves the kid alone, provided she isnt having sex.
What Ashley said, although she and I by a freaky coincidence of nature said almost exactly the same things anyway. Also: I'd say you're the one who stinks at arguing since you haven't managed to convince anyone who's posted in this thread that your side of the argument is correct.Quote:
Originally posted by darkchrono
lol, you guys stink at arguing
Seperated at birth, we was.Quote:
Originally posted by The Man
What Ashley said, although she and I by a freaky coincidence of nature said almost exactly the same things anyway.
It sure seems that way. ;o
Or maybe you're the same person and you're trying to TRICK ME.
And if that's the case, you have sexy legs, Aaron.
Spiff just hit on me. Ew.
Ew? Or aw?
I don't know anymore. I'm so confused. Someone hold me.
lol, well all I have to say now is that you guys seem to have about as high of morality and responsibility level as Ms. Jolie has.
And regardless of what you guys try to respond back by saying. You guys are the ones who are wrong. Go pose the question to 95% of parents out there and you will then discover it.
And abominatrix. Do you think it is ok to RISK the chance of getting a disease even if the chances are less then 50%. You are saying that is ok to risk it simply because the chances are less than great. And it is ok to risk getting pregnant again simply because she has the money to afford it.
Nothing is full proof. And she is putting the well-being of her kid on the line when she is taking those RISKS. That is how it effects her kid at this point even if the kid doesn't know about it.
By your opinions. It would be ok for you to go out and start using drugs and to become an alcoholic and have sex with tons of people if your parents did not find out. Because the only way it would effect your family is if they found out.
And please do not come back with that silly getting in a car accident or making movies analogy again. As that is just plain silly.
And you show a lack of parental instincts by showing a complete lack of responsibility for anything other than yourself. The fact that you say it is ok to do all that stuff shows that you are not responsible enough to take on the responsibility of raising someone.
For crap's sake. They aren't saying it's okay to do it. They aren't supporting it. They aren't doing it. They are merely trying to say that it's not going to screw up her kid. And just because they think this doesn't mean they're bad parents.
I think you need to stop forcing your opinions on people, also. You are not always right. I think this is a good example.
Yes, I'm sure insulting people's morality is likely to get you on their good side.Quote:
Originally posted by darkchrono
lol, well all I have to say now is that you guys seem to have about as high of morality and responsibility level as Ms. Jolie has.
Yes, I'm sure the majority is always right on everything. Which is why Bush is the president.Quote:
And regardless of what you guys try to respond back by saying. You guys are the ones who are wrong. Go pose the question to 95% of parents out there and you will then discover it.
If condoms are used properly, the risk is FAR lower than fifty percent. I don't know the exact statistics, but I believe it is indeed less likely than getting in a fatal or life-threatening car accident.Quote:
And abominatrix. Do you think it is ok to RISK the chance of getting a disease even if the chances are less then 50%. You are saying that is ok to risk it simply because the chances are less than great. And it is ok to risk getting pregnant again simply because she has the money to afford it.
How? SHE'S the one having sex. Not her kid. Her kid isn't at all at risk of getting any STDs from Angelina's having sex.Quote:
Nothing is full proof. And she is putting the well-being of her kid on the line when she is taking those RISKS.
It doesn't affect her kid.Quote:
That is how it effects her kid at this point even if the kid doesn't know about it.
Actually, that's not what we're saying at all. We're saying it doesn't have any effect on what kind of parent she is. Guess what, you can have sex with lots of people and still take care of your child! Guess what, having promiscuous sex doesn't mean you won't be able to instill a sense of moral values in your children, especially if they're not around to know you're having promiscuous sex. Which they shouldn't be. Kids don't know everything about their parents' lives naturally anyway, and they shouldn't. You raise children well by the example what you let them see, not what you do when they're not around. I'm not saying it's necessarily morally right or wrong to do things behind your children's back, but what your kids don't know about has no effect on how well you raise your kids, as long as it doesn't impact your behaviour while you're actually around them.Quote:
By your opinions. It would be ok for you to go out and start using drugs and to become an alcoholic and have sex with tons of people if your parents did not find out.
It's pretty accurate, actually.Quote:
And please do not come back with that silly getting in a car accident or making movies analogy again. As that is just plain silly.
How so? You're just making broad generalisations now. It's irresponsible to go around having safe sex? Because that's the first I've heard this. It must have just been printed in the New York Times yesterday!Quote:
And you show a lack of parental instincts by showing a complete lack of responsibility for anything other than yourself. The fact that you say it is ok to do all that stuff shows that you are not responsible enough to take on the responsibility of raising someone.
Edit: Thank you, Spiff.
Good job questioning my morals there, brick out. We've been through this before, you and I. Just because I don't freak out over idiotic stuff other people are doing does not mean I have no morals. There's a difference between having morals and being needlessly judgemental, and you're definitly on the latter side of that fence.
As for the rest, well Aaron covered that quite well. Good job, bro. And Spiff too.
Lol, well you guys all go ahead and try to teach your kids morals in which you yourself do not follow.
You guys go on ahead and live a lie to the people you gave life to.
Just go on ahead and be a false identity to your children.
It is ok to lie and cheat your kids as to who you really are. Because it only matters if they found out the type of person their parent actually was. If they continue to believe the lie it is still all good.
You guys have wonderful wonderful ideas.
My parents taught me morals they didnt follow. Both of them were promiscious, they lied. They beat eachother, they did drugs. They cheated on eachother, my dad's an alcoholic. My father killed in Vietnam.
I have never had sex, I do my best to be truthful. I've been in two fights in my entire life. I have never done drugs, I have never cheated on someone I was with, I have had a total of one beer in my 21 years, and I have never killed another human beings.
Nice try.
Hi. When did we say that we're sleeping around behind our kids backs? I must have missed that part.
WE ARE NOT SUPPORTING HER ACTIONS. WE ARE SAYING THAT IT'S NOT NECESSARRILY IRRISPONSIBLE FOR HER TO BE DOING IT. THIS DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY MEAN THAT WE OURSELVES WILL BE DOING IT WHEN WE HAVE CHILDREN.
Jeez.
So abominatrix because you might have turned out ok when you may have had a rough childhood possibly.
Do you then think it is ok for parents to act that way though.
Do you think it is ok for parents to do all that stuff and to act in that way and to lie to their kids.
Do you think it is ok for parents to act in that way.
Yes or No.
Thanks for ignoring what Spiff said. I am not saying it's okay for Angelina Jolie to do what she's doing. What I'm saying it, it's nothing to freak out about.
Do I think it's okay that my parents did those things? No. But regardless of the fact that they did, they raised me right. I didnt turn out okay because I had a rough childhood, I turned out that way because I had good parents. They werent the best people, but they were wonderful parents. Just because they did these things wrong, it doesnt make them bad parents. Not at all. I turned out great, thanks to them. Not despite them.
I dont think it's okay for anyone to act that way. But it isnt my business, and it doesnt stop them from being good parents. Mine are prime examples of this.
Wow, this sparked an argument -- *hides*
Anyway, I don't see why people would think AJ is a sexless being. Failing that, I don't see how you can impose that she be in a committed relationship just to have sex. I read an interview where she said she was not ready, and was probably will never be ready for a relationship. Now I don't know what happened in her previous relationship, but a human being has sexual needs. It makes sense that AJ has the same needs, and after a year or whatever, why can't she just relieve herself?
I don't see a problem with single mothers having one-night-stands or whatever. I do have a problem with her dating people she already knew as friends though, but that's hardly a universal grounds for complaint.
And, as a victim of perverted boyfriends, her having one night stands and not exposing these men to her child, not only saves the kid the pain of emotional attachement (I know from experience, I got attached to my mom's boyfriends and then had them break up) and also the pains that may come from potentially bad men (again, I was molested by a boyfriend of my mother's, I know how it is).
yes, abominatrix, the problem though with that is that the kids who turned out ok when their parents acted in that way are probably in the minority. The majority of kids whose parents lied, cheated and whatever else as to who they really were probably did grow up a little scarred because of it.
You turned out ok. But the majority of kids in those situations generally do not turn out ok. And that their lies the problem with parents acting in that manner.
Most of my friends were raised in such a matter, and they turned out fine.
I'd like to see support for what you're saying. Most especially for kids that are never exposed to the wrongs their parents commit.
So maybe some actress is a bad mother. Stop the presses. This is the news of the century. I thought they were all saints.
Wow, I really really don't care. --TheAbominatrix
I agree.
People are all too quick to judge these days. --The Man
I disagree.
lol, you guys stink at arguing --darkchrono
I hope someone else apppreciates the heroic effort involved in my not responding to this statement.
you want to see support for it though abominatrix.
Look at the overall world.
In the world I see people raising their kids thousands of different ways in thousands of different situations. Good way to get around providing evidence for what you say.
Ok, you guys are totally missing darkchrono's point. You don't have to be so quick to leap at his throat, y'know.
He means that it's not good for her to do that because multiple partners = more chance of disease, of getting a psycho partner, and all that good stuff.
However, it didn't say she was prostituing herself. There's a difference between just randomly sleeping around and having casual sex with a couple close friends. A HUGE difference. It would lower the chance of disease, and violence by a lot because you know the person.
That wouldn't affect the child too much, although it's better for a child to be raised by two people than one. So a stable relationship would be better, but eh. Then it's no different than any other single Mom.
Most kids who grow up in broken homes turn out with some sort of issue. That's pretty basic knowledge. I wouldn't consider that a broken home though.
I could cut the sarcasm in this thread with a knife.
In darkchrono's defense, I do think if a mother sleeps around with a lot of guys it sets a bad example for the child. The child could grow up thinking that this type of behavior is normal and acceptable and, although the mother was acting in a safe and legal way, the child might fail to heed these and end up getting hurt. Sex is such an emotional act that it can cause great pain if used in the wrong way. I think parents should set a good example. I don't know if she is or not, the media is so biased and anxious to get the dirt that who knows what the facts are half the time.
Why the sexual practices of an actress is our business I do not know, but, unfortunately for Angelina, she is in the public eye and these things get exposed, and I doubt her kids will grow up never knowing of these things.
EDIT: Well it looks like Emerlad Aeris just said the exact same thing, making my post look unoriginal and unnecessary :D. Anyway, thanks for explaining some of the other side, because I think darkchrono gets misunderstood a lot of the time.
But the point we're all making is, this child probably has no knowledge of his mother's actions. She doesnt announce to him "K, mommy's gonna go have some sex now." She just leaves the house for a while, the same as if she left for the library for a while. The child is probably not left alone (by the way, this child was from Cambodia, so I doubt that, short of molesting the kid daily, his life will be any worse than it could have been) without any knowledge of his mother's actions. This wouldnt be damaging him. I never knew of any of the extra-marital affairs my parents had, thus it never effected me.
And yes, once the kid is old enough to read, he'll be exposed to this constantly. Though I dont see why the world should care that Angelina Jolie is having sex.
And his point was that sleeping around could cause her to catch a disease and potentially die. AIDS is out there. Along with that, maybe the person would want more than just sex and become violent. That would affect the child. Those are things that could affect the child, not the actual sex itself. Even though I said this in my last post.
And I already adressed that. By that same token she can get in a car accident and die. She can randomly get cancer and die. She could get aids in a blood transfer gone bad. She could get aids from an unfaithful husband. Yes, it is possible to get AIDs. But by that token, she'd be a bad mother if she did anything in which she could potentially get sick or hurt or killed. The stunts in her movies, driving a car, having sex. Yes, she should take precautions. Yes, she shouldnt be having promiscuous sex. But the act does not make her a bad mother.
It doesn't make her a bad mother, but it reflects the fact that she is probably a bad mother.
yes, it is a reflection of what she is like. And it does kind of show that she is looking more towards her needs at #1 than her childs needs. It is kind of a selfish act on her part.
If she didn't want to face that kind of responsibility she never should have had a kid. Or at least given it up for adoption where someone grown up enough would be able to handle the responsibility much better.
She adopted the kid herself, from Cambodia.
There's a lot more to raising a kid than this. Looking more towards her needs? What, by going out once in a while? She isnt doing this 24/7. That's like saying a single mother is ignoring her child by going out on dates. She had needs too. She isnt leaving this kid at home alone to go out for 10 hours a day and to have sex. That's way out of proportion.
Could she be a bad mother? Of course. This doesnt make her a bad mother. Judging people on one thing you know about them isnt at all fair. I dont know this woman well enough to judge her as a parent.
well if the article got the situation right she isn't going out on dates. She is however seeming to be going out on sex dates. Which is irresponsible.
She could go out on a regular date with a guy and there wouldn't be anything wrong with that.
But from what the article said it looks like all she is looking for is mindless sex.
She must still think she is in a college sorority or even in highschool. Just taking a guess but if I had a decision to make on her I would say she is probably a bit on the immature side.
But what if on this regular date, this guy rapes and kills her? What if this regular date leads to sex, as many regular dates do? How can you say it's irresponsible only if she's just having sex? Is it better if he buys her dinner first?
Is it immature? Of course it is! But it doesnt make her a bad mother.
No abominatrix it does not maker her a bad mother. But it does maker her a rather irresponsible mother.
Being a bad mother in my opinion means that she is not fully capable of loving the child. But being an irresponsible mother in my opinion means she is not fully capable of raising the child and giving the child all it needs to go out and be a success in the adult world.
So she may not be bad. But she probably is rather irresponsible.
She says the perfect man would be a devoted father.
But I think she instead needs to be worrying about what the perfect mom would be like.
Find me one parent that is one-hundred percent responsible in all fields. As long as the kid is raised in a loving environment, he'll turn out fine.
The act of promiscuous sex is irresponsible, but this does not effect her parenting skills. As long as she keeps this away from the child, the child will be fine. The two acts are completly seperate, and coming from a very similiar situation, it's best for the child's emotional state. I've had so many of my mother's boyfriends come and go from my life, getting attached to one and then the two of them breaking up and me losing this person forever. It's extremely hurtful to a child, especially when the child cannot comprehend exactly what is going on and why. As long as Ms. Jolie keeps these two aspects of her life seperate (though of course always keeping her child in mind), she'll do far better than dating and breaking up, dating and breaking up until she finds the right guy. She knows what she needs, and she's taking care of it. Big deal.
And I still don't see how it's anyone's business but hers.
That's because it shouldn't be. People are far too nosy.Quote:
Originally posted by TheAbominatrix
And I still don't see how it's anyone's business but hers.
Yes, it's possible that the kid will find out about her sexual habits by the time he (or she, I wasn't bothered to read the article closely) is old enough to read. It's also possible that by the time the child is old enough to read, Angelina won't be doing those things anymore. How likely is it that the kid will encounter an article about his mother's sex life anyway, though? I wasn't exactly a typical child, but even if I were I doubt I'd have encountered any articles about celebrities' sex lives until I was around fourteen or so, just because before then I really didn't care. By that time in a child's life, morals are already rather firmly implanted in his head. It won't have no effect on his life, most likely, but it won't be nearly as strong as the values he's been taught when he's young. If I'd been a child of a single mother at fourteen and found out that my mother was having sex with multiple partners, not only would I not have been particularly surprised, I doubt I'd have judged her for it either. Frankly, I'd be happy for her keeping her personal life far away from my life, because as Ashley said, going through parents having multiple partners can be a difficult experience. (Not that I know personally, because my parents are happily married, but I've seen the effect it had on some of my friends).
And expecting an adult not to have sex just because they're not involved in a steady relationship, these days, is pretty ridiculous. Especially a twenty-eight (I think)-year old woman, since the female's libido reaches its highest around thirty.
First off, if you think she is a bad mother for what she's doing, read this little bit from the article:
"I went for about two years with absolutely no man around me and then decided to get closer to men who were already very close friends of mine," the Oscar-winning bombshell, 28, tells the New York Post, causing a collective groan of disappointment from all the men who failed to befriend her in the past 24 months. "It's kind of an adult way of having adult relationships."
According to the fiercely frank Angelina, she's "realistic" about the odds of ever finding the "perfect man," who must also be a devoted dad to her 2-year-old son Maddox, so right now she's determined to keep her love life "very, very separate" from her home life.
"As crazy as that sounds, meeting a man in a hotel room for a few hours and then going back and putting my son to bed and not seeing that man again for a few months is about what I can handle now," the twice-divorced star tells the paper. "I can feel like a woman and get close to a man but it's not a relationship that interferes with my family."
So essentially, she's doing what any normal human being does and is having sex, but she's keeping seperate from her child, which is a lot better than bringing that mess into her son's life. Not only is she going that far, read the bold text where she explains just how important her son is to her; that if a man can't accept him and lovingly raise him, then he isn't fit for a husband for her. That's smart of her, to keep her pleasure and raising her son seperate, and to acknowledge her son's well-being as a priority.
And it became our business when she told the reporter whose express purpose is to tell as many people as possible. Something tells me she could care less who knows what.
While that's a valid point, I still don't see why that means we should care. ;) I agree with everything you said in that post though; it seems that certain people's reading comprehension on this message board is a bit low.Quote:
Originally posted by LH
And it became our business when she told the reporter whose express purpose is to tell as many people as possible.
Telling the press doesn't make it our business by a long shot. It just means we know about it. Not everything we hear about becomes our business.
Agreed there. I'd hope most people have bigger things to worry about than who is doing who and why. Well, at least it summons a pleasurable image. :love:Quote:
Originally posted by The Man
I still don't see why that means we should care. ;)
I don't follow you there. If it wasn't meant to be the public's business, why are articles about it being printed in a public forum? My concept of "none of your business" means that I'm not going to tell you.Quote:
Originally posted by Emerald Aeris
Telling the press doesn't make it our business by a long shot. It just means we know about it. Not everything we hear about becomes our business.
The articles are printed because America is obsessed with it's stars and wants to know everything about them. I don't think wanting to know their private lives necessarily makes it meant to be our business.
it seems that certain people's reading comprehension on this message board is a bit low. -- The Man
That's not very nice :(
Angelina Jolie isn't a bombshell. She just has a pretty mouth.
Would any guy(or girl) in their right mind do that?Quote:
Originally posted by Spaceman Spiff
The bottom line is: If you don't like Angelina Joline having sex in hotel rooms, then don't have sex with Angelina Joline in hotel rooms. It's that simple.
What? Her mouth is frightening and ugly.
I think what I'm trying to say is that something like this, where she glady volunteers this information with the intent to have it be known by America, is our business because she presents it that way. Now, if MSN busted into her hotel room and took pictures of her miraculous body in action, that's no one's business.Quote:
Originally posted by Del Murder
The articles are printed because America is obsessed with it's stars and wants to know everything about them. I don't think wanting to know their private lives necessarily makes it meant to be our business.
Well of course we can know about it by the way it's presented, but I still don't see why she made it our business. Too much information. Like I said before, America is obsessed. If there wasnt a demand for this nonsense, it would never have been printed.
*agrees*Quote:
Originally posted by Spuuky
What? Her mouth is frightening and ugly.
She could be better mother, maybe. Or not. I don't know her, and I frankly couldn't care less about her life. She has money, and the child could be under great care when she's out having fun or whatever. She's probably only hurting herself, if anyone at all. I see no reason why this is even an issue. I could care less about celebs. You don't have to pay attention if you don't want to. I have my own life to live; I don't feel like being one of the many who read up on hollywood insider magazines or whatever.
Meh. Her choices don't have any bearing on me, and hopefully won't have any discernible impact on her son... at least until he reaches school and starts finding all these wacky old articles about her "sizzling bombshell babe" mother.
Lots of people sleep around, lots of people have lower moral standards than Angelina Jolie. She shouldn't receive extra criticism just because she's a celebrity. Instead, how about condemning the "Average New Zealand University Student" who has intimate relations with six complete strangers every year?
I may not agree with what she does, but my disapproval isn't really going to change a whole lot.[q=Spiff]The bottom line is: If you don't like Angelina Joline having sex in hotel rooms, then don't have sex with Angelina Joline in hotel rooms. It's that simple.
[/q]Today's best post.
Just because a woman becomes a mother, that doesn't mean that she stops being a woman. Broadcasting your sex life to the media is another thing though. I don't know why anyone would tell this stuff to the media.