Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/05/14/opinion/caplan-angelina-jolie-mastectomy/index.html?hpt=hp_c2

It is making it very hard to find useful hits in my daily google search for Angelina Jolie's breasts.

Maybe you should look up the surgeon, I'll bet he knows

 Grey Templar wrote:
Maybe you should look up the surgeon, I'll bet he knows

Ouch!




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
http://edition.cnn.com/2013/05/14/opinion/caplan-angelina-jolie-mastectomy/index.html?hpt=hp_c2

It is making it very hard to find useful hits in my daily google search for Angelina Jolie's breasts.

Double ouch!!

Well I'm glad to hear it's been taken care of. Cancer sucks.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Well I'm glad to hear it's been taken care of. Cancer sucks.

Shes s pretty strong lady it seems. Glad she is able to highlight something like this, even if she has suffered her own problems.

Da, someone prominent speaking out can only be positive for health issues like cancer.

She is a sex symbol, those boobs were a big reason for that as well. She has featured them prominently in quite a few movies.

For a sex symbol to come out and make it clear that she is willing to sacrifice a big part of that to prevent a sickness that can take her away from her family should say alot. Hopefully it will inspire some women down the line.

 d-usa wrote:
She is a sex symbol, those boobs were a big reason for that as well. She has featured them prominently in quite a few movies.

For a sex symbol to come out and make it clear that she is willing to sacrifice a big part of that to prevent a sickness that can take her away from her family should say alot. Hopefully it will inspire some women down the line.

Considering that the things that helped her become famous were implants, and she's got all the money in the world, I would imagine she'll probably have little over all change in her appearance.

But yes, this was good of her to publicize.

 djones520 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
She is a sex symbol, those boobs were a big reason for that as well. She has featured them prominently in quite a few movies.

For a sex symbol to come out and make it clear that she is willing to sacrifice a big part of that to prevent a sickness that can take her away from her family should say alot. Hopefully it will inspire some women down the line.

Considering that the things that helped her become famous were implants, and she's got all the money in the world, I would imagine she'll probably have little over all change in her appearance.

But yes, this was good of her to publicize.

Her breasts weren't fake, although she wore padding to give the impression of a more impressive rack when playing the role of Lara Croft.

 Cheesecat wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
She is a sex symbol, those boobs were a big reason for that as well. She has featured them prominently in quite a few movies.

For a sex symbol to come out and make it clear that she is willing to sacrifice a big part of that to prevent a sickness that can take her away from her family should say alot. Hopefully it will inspire some women down the line.

Considering that the things that helped her become famous were implants, and she's got all the money in the world, I would imagine she'll probably have little over all change in her appearance.

But yes, this was good of her to publicize.

Her breasts weren't fake, although she wore padding to give the impression of a more impressive rack when playing the role of Lara Croft.

I may be wrong on that. I was informed long ago that they were, but not all information passed down is right.

If you're ever curious about a famous person's (or porn stars, models, etc of various states of fame and obscurity) boobs just use boobpedia, it gives you all sorts of info on people's boobs (like cup size, are they natural of fake, etc).

An 87% chance of getting breast cancer seems suspiciously accurate.

 Cheesecat wrote:
If you're ever curious about a famous person's (or porn stars, models, etc of various states of fame and obscurity) boobs just use boobpedia, it gives you all sorts of info on people's boobs (like cup size, are they natural of fake, etc).

Why oh why did you have to tell me about this when I am at work. I don't think my boss would be impressed if I was looking at boobpedia when on the phoen to customers...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BryllCream wrote:
An 87% chance of getting breast cancer seems suspiciously accurate.

They are doing some very impressive, and complex, work with medical statistics at the moment.

I was watching embarising bodys last night and it seems from what they were saying she has had a big impact on people thinking about cancer testing.

Good on her.

Also, boobs. Big jubbly boobs. Yay for boobs!

Moving into serious mode I dunno.... it seems kind of premature to have a double massectomy on a possibility.

But I'm more annoyed that every channel today seemed split between Angelina Jolie's boobs and the music video in space.

Two cool topics but, y'know, guys, news maybe?

I haven't heard so much about Angelina Jolie's breasts since Gia came out...

Gah, you have the same problem as me!

When I heard about this i thought it was a little extreme, but hopefully this will help women in general feel better about body image.

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
Moving into serious mode I dunno.... it seems kind of premature to have a double massectomy on a possibility.

I don't think that it's that uncommon for some women to have that procedure if they have a high risk of breast cancer, or a significant family history.

If you have 87% chance i'd be more than willing to take any preventative measures...

 BryllCream wrote:
An 87% chance of getting breast cancer seems suspiciously accurate.

87.5% is ~7/8.
If the 8 is based on certain pairs of genes, the 7 is probably refering to the amount of faulty genes she has that are thought to cause cancer.

Good on here though.
She might have wanted work done, and now's a good enough time to do that.
People are hardly going to complain that they're fake, when they're told why she had it done.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
Moving into serious mode I dunno.... it seems kind of premature to have a double massectomy on a possibility.

I don't think that it's that uncommon for some women to have that procedure if they have a high risk of breast cancer, or a significant family history.

Yeah, but it seems a little strange to have it done before you absolutely need it done.

Getting tested for a high probability seems like you'd just go in for very regular check ups. And in the event of cancer appearing you can then have the surgery before it gets rampant. Especially if its not predicted to happen for a long while yet.

Its more an early warning system than something you'd make the decision on. At least that's how I'd feel about it.

Sounds like self-mutilation to me.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
Moving into serious mode I dunno.... it seems kind of premature to have a double massectomy on a possibility.

I don't think that it's that uncommon for some women to have that procedure if they have a high risk of breast cancer, or a significant family history.

Yeah, but it seems a little strange to have it done before you absolutely need it done.

If you wait to have it done, it might not be curable. My aunt is currently battling Paget's disease of the breast, which is a rare form of breast cancer. Her diagnosis is good because that caught it early.

It's one hell of a decision to make, and i certainly don't envy anyone that has to make it.

I think it's a little extreme to design to go as far as she did absent any actual current cancer. But, you know, she is privy to her information and I am not and 87% is not exactly betting odds, not when you have a young family and, at the moment, no cap on what you can spend on treatments.

I don't think this really changes my opinion of her one way or the other. I already liked her OK, although I think she shouldn't have gotten that nose job. I liked her original, Hackers nose.

 kronk wrote:
If you wait to have it done, it might not be curable. My aunt is currently battling Paget's disease of the breast, which is a rare form of breast cancer. Her diagnosis is good because that caught it early.

It's one hell of a decision to make, and i certainly don't envy anyone that has to make it.

For a lot of people cancer is not something you gamble with, especially if you have a relatively high chance of contracting it. The fact that she also has a young family may have played a factor in her decision.

Christina Applegate did this some time back in 2008.

Fair play to her. If my balls had an 87% chance of killing me slowly and painfully, they'd be in a pickle jar already.

I cannot fathom why anyone cares about this. Or why it makes her 'heroic'. I may be annoyed because I had to spend my lunch break listening to TMZ blather on about this.

If it gets other women to look into it as well, then I can't see any harm in it tbh.

No one is going to listen on mass to Mrs Jones at no. 63 who goes through the same thing. Jolie has a worldwide audience because of the pedestal being a movie star puts her on, regardless of if we like that or not.
So if her comments save even a handful of lives because they looked into it after she raised this, I'd say she did the right thing.

Hell, Jade Goody was a joke in my mind, still is to a degree, famous in the UK for being a bit daft/dim on a reality TV program. However when she was diagnosed with Cervical cancer and then a very public viewing of her fast deterioration and death, there was a 12% rise in the number of women, especially younger women who might of thought themselves immune at that age to go and be tested that year.

Once again, women die of that horrible disease every day, but because a minor celebrity had it, people took notice. So regardless of any motives, or anything else, the fact Jolie raised it will be potentially positive for many people who take notice and go and get checked and then find something before it is way too late.

And some people might just go "If Jolie can get her tits chopped off and be okay, then I will be okay too" instead of hanging on to a diseased body part for too long because of body image.

 d-usa wrote:
And some people might just go "If Jolie can get her tits chopped off and be okay, then I will be okay too" instead of hanging on to a diseased body part for too long because of body image.

Exactly!

I actually do think it's a brave decision... I don't care how famous you are... or how right, but chopping off a body part to mitigate a chance that you'd get cancer is brave. Remember, she lost her mum to that cancer.