Psycho-Babble Social Thread 599531

Shown: posts 1 to 5 of 5. This is the beginning of the thread.

 

On a lighter note. . . Hollywood unwed pregnancies

Posted by Sarah T. on January 16, 2006, at 0:17:08

There's a reason that PEOPLE magazine has such staying power. How long has it been around? Thirty or forty years? And there's a reason that so many doctors have PEOPLE magazine in their office waiting rooms. Reading about celebrities' lives and problems distracts us from our own.

So, has anyone noticed how many celebrities are suddenly pregnant out-of-wedlock? What's going on? Rachel Weitz, Angelina Jolie and Katie Holmes, to name just a few. And what about Jennifer Garner? Are she and Ben Affleck married yet? Is Nicole Kidman pregnant, too? I don't think couples have to get married in order to be good parents, but there's something about the commitment inherent in marriage that makes it seem as if it might give the children more security or the illusion of security (I think it was Helen Keller who said that security is mostly an illusion).

What's going on? Are the women in these relationships so eager to have children before it's too late that they're using their dates du jour as studs?

 

Re: On a lighter note. . . Hollywood unwed pregnancies » Sarah T.

Posted by Phillipa on January 16, 2006, at 17:44:34

In reply to On a lighter note. . . Hollywood unwed pregnancies, posted by Sarah T. on January 16, 2006, at 0:17:08

Plus look how skinny they all are. Thought the new image was of in shaped muscular women. Fondly, Phillipa

 

Re: On a lighter note. . . Hollywood unwed pregnan » Sarah T.

Posted by Dinah on January 16, 2006, at 17:59:03

In reply to On a lighter note. . . Hollywood unwed pregnancies, posted by Sarah T. on January 16, 2006, at 0:17:08

Given the overall duration of Hollywood marriages, the added security may indeed be an illusion.

Although I suppose we don't hear as much about the thirty year marriages in Hollywood.

Maybe it has something to do with the fact that very rich single moms don't face some of the challenges that other single moms face. I can't imagine functioning timewise or economically as a single mom.

 

Re: On a lighter note. . . Hollywood unwed pregnancies » Phillipa

Posted by Sarah T. on January 16, 2006, at 23:50:51

In reply to Re: On a lighter note. . . Hollywood unwed pregnancies » Sarah T., posted by Phillipa on January 16, 2006, at 17:44:34

Hi Phillippa,

You're right. Some of them are so skinny but not healthy looking. I don't know how far along Angelina Jolie is. You can see a bump around her belly, but the rest of her body is so skinny. She's thinner than I've ever seen her.

S.

 

Re: On a lighter note. . . Hollywood unwed pregnan » Dinah

Posted by Sarah T. on January 17, 2006, at 0:08:36

In reply to Re: On a lighter note. . . Hollywood unwed pregnan » Sarah T., posted by Dinah on January 16, 2006, at 17:59:03

> Given the overall duration of Hollywood marriages, the added security may indeed be an illusion. >

That's true. Some of the pregnant unmarried actresses are saying they'll be getting married soon or after the pregnancy. One (I think it was Katie Holmes) said she didn't want to walk down the aisle while pregnant.

> Although I suppose we don't hear as much about the thirty year marriages in Hollywood.>

Paul Newman and Joanne Woodward are the only ones I can think of at the moment.

> Maybe it has something to do with the fact that very rich single moms don't face some of the challenges that other single moms face. I can't imagine functioning timewise or economically as a single mom.>>

I can't either. I'm sure the very rich single moms have at least one or more nannies and probably several other assistants as well.


This is the end of the thread.


Show another thread

URL of post in thread:


Psycho-Babble Social | Extras | FAQ


[dr. bob] Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD, bob@dr-bob.org

Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.