Post: #51

I mean I can't blame women for getting the surgery.... but God Damn do we have to label it as being heroic? Other options have to be available....

Post: #52

I'm at the point that I can't stand even hearing the word "empowering".

Post: #53

Brad's going to go back to Aniston soon.

Post: #54

Setting a bad example: most women in the world can't afford to have the mastectomy and implants.

Post: #55

(05-14-2013 10:07 PM)Clyde Rules Wrote:  I mean I can't blame women for getting the surgery.... but God Damn do we have to label it as being heroic? Other options have to be available....

My thoughts exactly.

Post: #56

It's tragic she had to do this. But, honestly. Who cares.

Post: #57

Quote:The Associated Press, Sunday, May 26, 2013, 5:24pm (PDT)

ESCONDIDO, Calif. (AP) — Less than two weeks after Angelina Jolie revealed she'd had a double mastectomy to avoid breast cancer, her aunt died from the disease Sunday.

Debbie Martin died at age 61 at a hospital in Escondido, Calif., near San Diego, her husband, Ron Martin, told The Associated Press.

Debbie Martin was the younger sister of Jolie's mother, Marcheline Bertrand, whose own death from ovarian cancer in 2007 inspired the surgery that Jolie described in a May 14 op-ed in the New York Times.

According to her husband, Debbie Martin had the same defective BRCA1 gene that Jolie does, but didn't know it until after her 2004 cancer diagnosis.

"Had we known, we certainly would have done exactly what Angelina did," Ron Martin said in a phone interview.

Debbie Martin's death was first reported by E! News.

Ron Martin said after getting breast cancer, Debbie Martin had her ovaries removed preventively because she was also at very high genetic risk for ovarian cancer, which has killed several women in her family.

With her aunt being much older, having her ovaries removed made sense. Jolie is still younger, and maybe wants to have more children, so she'll accept some risk. This adds a little more perspective to why she decided to do what she did.

Post: #58

And research now shows that there's no benefit to double mastectomy unless you have BRCA1 mutation or something like that.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/...-find.html

Post: #59

(03-14-2016 09:50 AM)not_dead_yet Wrote:  And research now shows that there's no benefit to double mastectomy unless you have BRCA1 mutation or something like that.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/...-find.html

Quote:Actress Angelina Jolie revealed in a New York Times op-ed on Tuesday that she quietly underwent a preventive double mastectomy after discovering she carried the BRCA1 gene mutation, which sharply increases a woman's risk of developing breast cancer and ovarian cancer.

Post: #60

Angelina had kids, her boobs were probably sagging badly so she had a scoop and refill for cosmetic reasons - she even kept her nipples. Sure she had the mutation, but this wasn't some double mastectomy in the sense that she needed reconstruction and a fake nipple created - she looks no different than any other girl with implants.

Post: #61

I wonder if the fact that she has around 20 tattoos has anything to do with her ill health.

All those toxic metals which tattoo ink is made up of must do wonders for the female body and mind, and must be extra nourishing for the baby when she is pregnant.

Post: #62

(03-28-2018 03:12 AM)Mercenary Wrote:  I wonder if the fact that she has around 20 tattoos has anything to do with her ill health.

All those toxic metals which tattoo ink is made up of must do wonders for the female body and mind, and must be extra nourishing for the baby when she is pregnant.

If Brad Pitt stayed with her through all those tattoos (I believe he did I refuse to google the topic) he is one of Hollywood's bigger cucks. Between the tattoos, the tranny daughter/son, tit removal, tribe of African children, he is/was dating/married to about 1/10th of his SMV.

(edit: I'd say Pitt is about a 15 on the 1-10 scale. As in, point and bang, all day anywhere in the world. I personally would question even a PND of such a ridiculous skank, and my SMV is low compared to the big shots on the forum, much less Brad fuckin Pitt.)

Post: #63

I have a number of loved ones facing this. Reconstruction is not the same as augmentation.

With augmentation, the existing breast tissue remains, and the implant fills it out. If you squeeze a normal fake tittie, you can feel the soft, natural tissue over the hard implant.
Also, they only need to make a scar along the bottom edge, or they can come in from the side leaving only a scar under the armpit.

With reconstruction, they either take all the natural tissue, including the nipple, or they leave the nipple and supporting tissue, and take the rest.

In the case of removing the nipple, they have to make a fake nipple, which has no feeling. They may do this with a tattooed aureola and a knot of skin in the center, or they may use a fake stick-on nipple. No feeling in the nipple either way.
Also, the breast is hard, because all you have is the implant, with no soft, natural breast tissue remaining. At least with this method the scar can be minimized. Basically, this fills out a blouse so the woman looks normal, but they're more or less worthless in bed.

With nipple preserving reconstruction, you now have a nipple the woman can feel, but the scars come across the middle of the breast to right under the nipple. You still have a hard breast with no natural softness. It's better to have a nipple to suck on, but still it's a major loss over natural breasts.

There is a third option. They can take big chunks of skin and fat from your backside, and graft it in place. This makes a softer, nicer breast, but it still has big scars, but now you also have to heal in the place where large chunks of skin and tissue were removed. This is the best solution from the point of having something to squeeze and suck on, as long as you keep the lights off.

Definitely not equivalent to augmentation.

However, as much as all this sucks, it's not as bad as cancer treatment.