AndThePickles
Kiss the girl
- Joined
- May 23, 2005
- Messages
- 21,628
- Reaction score
- 10
- Points
- 158
amen
If some pathetic moron offerred me thousands for a picture of my baby I'd laugh really hard and say, "Here you go. Knock yourself out. I've got stacks more like it at home."
And the privacy thing isn't even a factor because these people are already watched and photographed while eating fries, picking their noses, scratching their asses, sun-bathing in their backyards, crying after squabbles, yawning, jogging, etc.
Unless people want to go the Michael Jackson "Conceal My Children Under a Burqa With No Eye-Holes" route.
That's true. I just think it's so crazy.
Actually, I kinda understand it... I used to hate the idea and just thought celebs were trying to pimp their kids, but it prevents a great measure of problems with the paparazzi. If you try to hide the kid, you can basically never take it out anywhere... so if a magazine wants pics, may's well let 'em pay... and in Brangelina's case, they did it so they could give the money to a charity... so I think of all of them, they did the best.
I mean, c'mon... there was no hiding their kid... it was basically the most awaited kid in the history of life since Jesus.
But they gave it to charity?
I mean ridiculous in terms of I can't believe the press is willing to pay that much money for PICTURES.