On being made out of meat.

2013-05-14 16:55

We are, by and large, made out of meat.

This has implications. For instance, we get sick. We die. Sometimes, we get something of a vote in the matter; we can, for instance, respond to getting sick in ways that make us less likely to die.

Angelina Jolie (an actress) is also human, and is also made out of meat. Edit: I thought she had cancer, but no, just an 87% chance of getting it due to genetics. She decided to go for the treatment most likely to result in living for a while, which is a double mastectomy. Thing is, she’s an actress. And because she’s an actress, her breasts are not really hers to dispose of if she’d rather live than have them. No, they belong to the millions of random strangers who are expressing horror and outrage that she would rather live than give them new masturbation material with lots of cleavage in it.

Y’all, this is sorta fucked up. Pretty sure that the married woman with the kid does not actually need to get your permission before she decides between your future fantasy life and how much time she’s likely to get with the husband and kid. Just… no. Seriously, this is not okay.

I’d try to draft some kind of “how to talk to your idiotic coworkers and friends about this” thing, with a list of talking points, except that fundamentally it’s so crazy I can’t even comprehend how someone could get to a position where they need this explained.

Peter Seebach

---

Comment

  1. I just wanted to say that she didn’t get cancer. She had a genetic test that indicated she had over an 80% chance of developing breast cancer. At the time of the mastectomy, her breasts were still healthy. She decided to remove them because of the future health risk.

    Otherwise I agree with you.

    — Debra · 2013-05-15 20:36 · #

  2. Peter, Angelina Jolie did not get cancer. She had a test done and a genetic marker was found that meant she had an 87% chance of getting breast cancer. After the double masectomy the chances went down to 5%.

    I applaud her decision and courage it took to write the op-ed, and in particular her calling to attention that it was only because she was rich that she was able to get the test done. Coming from a country with universal healthcare, the situation in America never ceases to baffle and horrify me.

    — Aatu Koskensilta · 2013-05-16 01:54 · #

  3. I’m confused by part of this post… You do not think that Ms. Jolie intended to spend the rest of her life breastless, do you? The cancer-prone originals have been replaced with artificial breasts, thus leaving the potential for “masturbation material” and “future fantasy life” essentially untouched. So this is unlikely to be the cause of the horror and outrage you witnessed (but then one has to wonder what is).

    — David · 2013-05-16 22:38 · #

  4. I wasn’t actually interested enough to find out whether she was getting replacements or not, it doesn’t seem relevant to me. I assume that the horror and outrage are from people who thought it was extremely relevant but also didn’t bother to check?

    seebs · 2013-05-17 11:42 · #

 
---