Angelina Jolie Reveals She Had Preventive Double Mastectomy

You're gonna pillory me for this, but hear me out.

I do not dispute her cancer risk or her fear. I do not dismiss cancer stats. I know how frightening the word is. And I know how much a lot of women tie their sexuality up into their bodies and, in particular, their breasts.

But I gotta say, I see this as a career move.

Please, hear me out.

She is 37, according to IMDB. Also according to them, her last acting award/nomination by any organization was in 2011 (she was in for a few image-type awards in 2012). A lot of her more recent stuff has been flops.

This is someone who has possibly had implants (hello, Lara Croft in Tomb Raider - but I know this has never been confirmed) and has been spending a goodly chunk of her more lucrative earning years raising a rather large family. You never hear of her doing plays or master classes or the like. She does a few films and that's it these days.

I am sure that she is getting passed over for ingénue and young espionage agent-type of roles, unless it's something she's done (she is reportedly making Salt 2 because, you know, there was such a public outcry for it. Not. Salt, by the way, was successful, but not a slam dunk, per IMDB, it was budgeted for an estimated $11 mil and earned $11.8 mil. Hardly a studio saver).

Plus there is a shelf life (pun partly intended) to breast implants, but even if she didn't actually have them before, the surrounding tissue does start to sag as you get older, as it does for every other woman on the planet.

I suspect what she has written is only partly the truth. I think there was probably also a breast lift in there, and if there were preexisting implants then they were replaced but with smaller ones.

And through it all, she gets to look like a saint and an advocate for women's health while getting a boatload of free positive publicity for a procedure that, at least in part, is tax-deductible for her because it is a cost related to her business.

Maybe you're right, it's just a career move, but it still gives the topic a lot of airplay and will help a lot of women make a difficult decision.

Yes, it was her right, and very likely she was right in doing that. Hard, hard, hard decision. Maybe not quite as hard for her, since she is an m.d. and knew the data, but still, just huge to do.

Nice quote. I wasn't aware of this issue.

It's possible she is completely unaware of this so I'd cut her some slack. I think the cost of the test was the least of her concerns when trying to understand her risk.

my first thought was that her intent is to stick the knife into Jennifer again.....Jolie knows victim culture well and knows how to play it like a fiddle too, but giving it to her mans ex whom she hates is a much more worthy goal than a career that she plans to end soon.

Oy, even at my most cynical, I can't see either her surgery, or her very public revelation about it, as a career move. Nor do I agree with you that she even needed such a career move because her breasts and movie grosses were both sagging.

The woman is a bona fide international movie star, of the highest magnitude, by the standards of which such things are judged. She earns phenomenal sums for her work, attracts a hoard of paparazzi and excites media buzz just by going out in public or stepping on the red carpet, and she has no trouble, at all, lining up her next job. In addition, she has garnered those awards that establish her credentials as a serious actress.

She has a career with the major success that most screen actors would die for, and it's a career that shows no signs of sagging or flagging. And she's already earned more than enough to ensure her a very cushy life-style for the rest of her days, even if she retired tomorrow.

And that career does not rest solely on her "sex symbol" status or physical attributes, or even her acting work, she's already made career moves by branching out into directing and screenwriting, with success in those areas as well. In 2012, she won the Stanley Kramer Award from the Producers Guild of America, for her efforts as a producer.

If anything, Jolie's revelation about her preventive radical surgery now associates her body with some pretty unpleasant words, like cancer and mastectomy, in the public mind--something that's not exactly career boosting, particularly for an actress who has been highly regarded, and ogled, for her physical attributes, no matter how much her disclosure is applauded for other reasons.

So I think the case you're making for this being a career boost, or her even needing a career boost, falls as flat as a pancake.

In addition, I don't know how you can possibly equate having breast implants either inserted or removed with the more radical and complex and prolonged surgery and aftercare involved with mastectomy and breast reconstruction, let alone suggest that she has undergone something that's little more than a fancy breast lift, and one she probably needed anyway. Let's not trivialize the physical and psychological ordeal that's involved with mastectomies and breast reconstruction. About the only thing that might have made it easier for Jolie was her ability to pay for it without blinking an eye, and the fact she says she had a very supportive partner by her side.

Come on, she doesn't need any more free publicity--she gets tons of it, on a world-wide scale. And, as far as looking like a saint, she's been involved in global humanitarian efforts for over a decade, and has been recognized for such work, in addition to the several charitable foundations she's established, and her involvement in various international social causes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angelina_Jolie#Humanitarian_work

And, if she now becomes an advocate for women's health, what's wrong with that? She has the money and celebrity clout to give her a powerful platform she can use to good effect.

I'm not pillorying you, jespah. You're entitled to your opinion. I just think there isn't a strong argument for the case you are making, and a lot that actually contradicts your view.

And let me make something very clear. I am not a particular fan of Angelina Jolie. I don't enjoy, or even watch, most of her movies. Other than "Girl Interrupted" and "The Changling" I don't think I've sat through any of the others from beginning to end, nor would I watch a movie simply because she's in it. And I couldn't be less interested in the latest doings of "Brangelina" and their brood--I'm not that crazy about Brad Pitt either.

So, I'm not defending her because I particularly like her. But I do think she made a brave and courageous statement in that NY Times piece, and I think she may have helped a great many other women by doing that. For that, I'm willing to put cynicism aside and tip my hat to her.

But with these preventive mastectomies, based on the results of genetic testing, the breast is not yet diseased, it only might become diseased at a later date. So I think the situation, and the decision, is a little different than it is when breast cancer has already appeared.

And the option that Jolie chose is not the only option. Careful monitoring of the breasts, with alternating mammographies and MRIs, at 6 month internals, might be another, less radical alternative--if there is insurance coverage, or money, to pay for that, and if the woman is even informed of such options. Jolie chose the option that she felt gave her the most control and peace of mind.

And there always is some "emotional stuff" with the amputation of any body part. How can there not be? We have a sense of our bodily integrity, we have a body image, and these are part of our identity, our sense of self. Even when amputation is crucial for survival, and that's the first priority, it's almost inevitable that one is going to experience a sense of loss and all that "emotional stuff" even prior to the amputation.

I'm thankful that neither I, nor the other women in my family, have had to confront these types of decisions. I'm honestly not sure what I might have done if I found out, when I was younger, that I was genetically predisposed to developing breast cancer or uterine cancer. Would I have wanted to just watch and wait, or would I have chosen radical preventive surgery? I really don't know. I do know it would have been a very difficult decision to make.

those who have the gene issue can also take anti cancer drugs which insurance will pay for....this approach is looking good in studies. also keep in mind that catching breast cancer at stage 0 has about a 90% 15 year survival rate.

for reference, her situation is much different than miss jolie's...

she has cancer in one breast now. (not sure what stage, we don't talk as much as we used to)

and her dad paid for the testing. she has no insurance.

she fears for her life more than the loss, but it's gonna mess with her head sexually.

I cannot fathom the emotions she is going through...

But - the other labs can't do the braca tests, or at least present them for money.

Useful article, to me - http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2013/05/14/brca_gene_and_breast_cancer_why_i_chose_not_to_get_tested.html

Rockhead, I wish your friend peace (and preferably cancer freedom).

http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/14/showbiz/celebrity-news-gossip/jolie-storify/index.html?hpt=hp_bn9

If I were willing to get the blood test to see if I had the gene, I already would have made up my mind that if it was positive, I'd get the prophylactic mastectomy.

For me, the hard decision would be if I wanted to get the test, if I wanted to know if I had the gene or not.

I'd go into knowing what my game plan would be based on the results.


Now, as far as making difficult decisions, I think one that would really throw me would be to decide if I wanted to be tested for huntington's chorea.

I don't know that I could live happily living day to day, with the sword hanging by a thread over my head....but I don't know if could live knowing what would happen to me.

In comparison, removing your breasts is a cake walk.

Sexually as in having breasts is intrinsic to making her feel like she is a female, a woman, or sexually as in having breasts is "necessary" for her to feel sexy?

She can get reconstructive surgery, is that an issue with her?

Breasts can be sexually spectacularly wonderful, over years and years. Losing their mass is one thing, losing all that nerve connected and brain joy is another. And of course, losing them for nursing babies, hard to quantify any of this.

uh, ok.

A friend of mine did have to make that decision, because of his family history of Huntington's. The not knowing, and the uncertainty, was worse for him, and he wanted to be able to plan his life in the event he would manifest the disorder. Fortunately, he tested negative. But the decision to have the test, wasn't any worse for him than the anxiety he carried with him for many years prior to the testing, worrying that he would have Huntington's--just deciding to have the test was some relief in itself for him, because it signaled the end of the uncertainty.

As genetic testing continues to advance, we might all be faced with such choices, and decisions, about our vulnerability to certain diseases based on our genetic make-up. Some people might want to know, others wouldn't.
I don't know where I'd fall. At this point in my life, I'd likely feel differently about it then I might if I was younger.

So can you discuss this as someone who has lost the sexual joy of having breasts?

Or do you not know what I am talking about?


I've read batches of articles extolling reconstructed breasts. No one mentions loss of sensation. Yet.
I get it, the wise choice, but that in itself is a huge loss.

It's just that while reading that post, I was hearing this in my head.

True.

First, a big deal, I could connect to youtube (computer old), but on this one I gave up at 38 seconds. Since I'm impatient I missed your point.

I think it is hard for people to let go of their breasts based on some statistics and not a diagnosis. For some people, in some circumstances.

I speak as someone with one dead sensation breast that I am lucky to still have.






It's the less saggy one.