The Psychology Behind Celebrity Parents Selling Their Babies
Breaking down human trafficking

okmagalba.jpg

Angelina Jolie. Christina Aguilera. Jessica Alba. Jamie Lynn Spears. Matthew McConaughey. These are all boobs who have sold their baby photos to the highest bidder, making the action of Reproducing While A Celebrity a very profitable business venture. And while money (from $1-15 million) may be the motivating factor in all these cases human trafficking, surely there must be some way to distinguish the types of celebrities who turn their children in revenue generating commodities, yes? Well, somebody is trying to make the case.

And it's Slate, of course. They've created a field guide for expectant celebrities to reference when deciding how to proceed when the tabloids are calling. We'll spare you a bullet-pointed listlce of the categories, but they range from The Narcissist With a Heart of Gold (i.e. Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt, because they supposedly donate the cheques to charity) to The Prudish Self-Promoter (i.e. Tori Spelling).

Everything is mostly accurate here, except for the placement of Nicole Kidman.

Slate throws her in the Reclusive Artist Type section, for her and Keith Urban's decision not to sell baby Sunday's photos, and instead, perhaps, releasing photos to the press at large without any exclusivity deal or money changing hands. The decision supposedly makes her a pious celebrity, but really it's just a public relations move, to distance herself from crazy husband Tom Cruise, who offered up exclusive baby Suri shots to Vanity Fair in exchange for a friendly article normalizing his marriage to Katie Holmes.

Jul 28, 2008 · posted by david · Link · 3 Responses
Related Posts

• 11.22.08: Blind Item: Peeping Editor-in-Chief (Comments: 0)
• 11.21.08: Mickey Rourke is the Comeback Kid (Comments: 2)
• 11.21.08: Neil Feldman's Battle with AOL's Tech Service Team (Comments: 1)
• 11.21.08: Newspapers Receive Temporary Monetary Reprieve (Comments: 0)
• 11.21.08: Blind Item: Cheating Editor-in-Chief (Comments: 2)

Comments (3)

No. 1 Patricia Sullivan says:

What is wrong with you guys? Who do you think you are kidding? Please look me in the eye and tell me TRUTHFULLY that, if you had a baby and a magazine offered you several million dollars for a cover exclusive, you would turn it down because YOU wouldn't "sell" YOUR baby. Just for YOUR information, letting someone publish photos of an infant does not even come close to "selling" the infant. (That comes under selling PHOTOS of the child, which is, as far as I know, not a moral issue.) One of the ways actors keep salary bases up, is by appearing on mag covers. That enables them to stay in the public eye during down times. It is ok for them to share the joy of this momentous occasion with others. AND to get paid for it. Its called earning a living.

Posted: Jul 30, 2008 at 4:18 pm
No. 2 eight says:

Very, very well said Patricia Sullivan!!!!!!

Posted: Jul 30, 2008 at 8:12 pm
No. 3 Matt says:

I disagree with this article. I don't see the harm in selling baby photos; especially considering the large amount of money these people are paid for them.

Posted: Aug 5, 2008 at 11:20 pm
Leave a Comment

It's easier to leave comments when you register for an account. It's quick.

Already have an account? Then log in!

Scroll Posts