Blind Item #13
I have written before about this permanent A list couple and their uterus factory. Apparently, in the past week, they cut some type of deal while overseas that gives them a "license" to continue doing this without fear of any prosecution.
BeyJay?
ReplyDeleteBey and Jay?!
ReplyDeleteBeyonce and Gay "Dick sucking lips all up on Lyor Cohen" Z
ReplyDeleteI thought her second pregnancy was actually real and the first one was a surrogate.
ReplyDeleteFactory farmed children
ReplyDeleteYeah how many of you are ok with that?
Babies, not children. There's a ton of money to be made in infant farming. Desperate woman from a 3rd world country willing to carry for rich and desparate couple.
DeleteNo, to factory farmed babies. I only support free range babies, who have plenty of room to crawl around and graze.
DeleteWhy would they use foreigners? Yeah I thought the second wasn't a surrogate. The first is their kid, but supposedly from their fertilized embryo implanted in a surrogate.
ReplyDeleteOh that second pregnancy was def real. Her whole face blew up...
ReplyDeleteAnd she is looking "pregnant" again https://www.thesun.co.uk/tvandshowbiz/6765730/beyonce-pregnant-jay-z-pictures-latest/
ReplyDelete@carlina I don't think she is preggo again though. Having a single baby stretches out the abdominal wall, and she had twins at that.
ReplyDeleteI think her keeping the pudge for now is due to either 2 things; Either she wants to show that she was really pregnant or she didn't have enough time to get it fixed before she went on tour. Possible third opinion is she wanted to remain in the blogs about another possible pregnancy. I give her 6 months after tour and she will be flat again.
I remember that blind a couple months. A celeb couple had a kind of illegal adoption / surrogacy thing going.
ReplyDeleteMost guesses were Bey and Jay
I still love that video where her pregnant stomach folds over onto itself.
ReplyDeletebey and jay and their creepy surrogate business..
ReplyDelete@Nummi I know, that's why I said "Pregnant"
ReplyDeleteBeyonce and Jay Z.
ReplyDeleteJimbonius, that one and what really sealed the deal for me was when she ran and then bent OVER FORWARD and JUMPED into and SUV head first - the week she "gave birth" to Blue Ivy. Because every woman about to give birth does that..... *eye roll*
ReplyDeleteAre the infants organic? I'm not buying any trash non-organic babies like a damn plebe.
ReplyDeletePeople do like their babies farm fresh, of course they never know about the refrigeration trucks or the heat lamps used to thaw out the frozen ones. Of course for some folks they're like little alligators, as soon as they get too big just flush'em and buy a new one.
ReplyDeleteWhat's wrong with just sstraight-out adoption? It's not like its not already a celeb trend...
ReplyDeleteAnd no one would think they're as stupid and lame as we all do when they try to pull off this loser charade
"Why would they use foreigners?"
ReplyDeleteYou're kidding, right? Vastly cheaper and vastly easier to, shall we say, "dispose of" if necessary later on.
How would some 3rd world even seek to get the word out that they had performed this service for some celeb/moneyed foreigner?
I can't believe people actually take these bey/jay blinds seriously. While it's quite clear they used a surrogate for their first child, they do not have a whole factory of them and they haven't murdered any of them
ReplyDeleteAnal Clooney
ReplyDeleteThe part of this blind that could be slightly true is if Bey and Jay get kick backs by recommending a lawyer who arranges these kinds of surrogacies with foreign women.
ReplyDeleteThe problem with this is that Bey would have to admit one of her pregnancies used a surrogate. Even if Bey and Jay ran the whole pipeline themselves, they would have to use Bey's surrogacy to sell it. That's informing a whole lot of people about Bey's little secret. I don't see that happening.
Pearl Jam was...right!?
ReplyDeletehttps://youtu.be/aDaOgu2CQtI
@plot,only very rich,secretive people like themselves, the Clooneys, for instance, would know.
ReplyDeleteI left a comment about this like 2 days ago. Enty mustve remembered it from that lol /s
ReplyDeleteMaybe Kimye. They use surrogates and Khloe is rumored to have used a surrogate for True.
ReplyDeleteThey keep procreating.
If anyone were to build the connections to make baby farms for other celebrities, it would be the Kardashians, no question. It would be the "in" they've wanted into the legit celebrity world for a long time.
ReplyDelete@Steve
LOL!
Beyoncé and that disgusting husband of hers. The Handmaid's Tale is not the dystopian future; it's here and it's happening. Feminist authors Renate Klein (Surrogacy: a Human Rights Violation) and Kajsa Ekis Ekman (Being and Being Bought: Prostitution, Surrogacy and the Split Self) have written extensively on this subject.
ReplyDeleteSurrogacy is about the exploitation of women, paid to become breeders for third parties. This is the industrialisation of childbirth, when wealthy women either don't want to or cannot carry a child of their own. And then there's the money to be made from women's bodies as commodities. Legalised commercial surrogacy is a legitimate means to provide infertile couples and gay men with children who share all or part of their genes. Women, without whose bodies this project is not possible, are reduced to incubators, to ovens, to suitcases. And the ‘product child’ is a tradable commodity who has never consented to being a ‘take away baby’: removed from their birth mother and given to strangers aka ‘intended parents’.
Fuck you Beyoncé and Jay Z for having impoverished and marginalised women impregnated just so that you can line your own pockets. You are tearing these babies away from their mothers--mothers they will never know--because of your greed and godlessness. Fuck you for industrialising women's bodies to line your own pockets. These babies that will never know their true mothers. And the mothers will never recover from losing their children.
+1million water lily. Thanks for the intelligent response to the total degredation of our gender through mass surrogacy and the hijacking of it via the false narrative that if you say you're a woman then you are actually a woman (in the uk anyhow) they are trying to turn our societies into a genderless homogenised population.
DeleteYeah +1000000
Delete"And the ‘product child’ is a tradable commodity who has never consented to being a ‘take away baby’: removed from their birth mother and given to strangers aka ‘intended parents’. "
ReplyDeleteNone of us consent to any aspect of our conception and birth. Do you imagine we can or do, as embryos or spirits?
Maybe we need to diminish the mythology of motherhood, which says a woman isn't a real woman and has accomplished nothing in her life unless there has been her own baby in her arms. There are great lives to be lead without children in the equation.
Permanent A couple=Prince William and Kate. Entry uses a different description for Jay Z and Beyoncé.
ReplyDeleteEntry had a blind time a while back about use of surrogate for permanent A list couple, popular guess was William and Kate.
The popular royals are always permanent A list.
Enty *** auto correct
ReplyDelete@plot
ReplyDelete"None of us consent to any aspect of our conception and birth. Do you imagine we can or do, as embryos or spirits?"
Your comment has nothing to do with the subject at hand. Whether or not spirits 'consent' to being born to their parents, they certainly have the human right to, first, know their biological parents and, second, be raised by their biological parent.
There is no friggin "mythology of motherhood" and there is absolutely nothing that says that women aren't real women until they've held a baby in their arms. We are human beings irrespective of whether we are mothers. Many of us lead great and productive lives without children in the equation. Seriously, your comment makes you look like a complete dickhead with your head stuck firmly in your 14th century arse.
What I know women are not is this: tradeable commodities, to be bought and sold like 'things', exploited for the money-grubbery of others. And children are not accessories, to be bought and sold like trinkets, ripped from their mothers, so that rich morons like Beyoncé, who like the idea of having a child for attention but can, because of their wealth, abnegate the responsibilities of motherhood. Because of their wealthy, they can pay for the nannies, the housekeepers, the tutors, the night nurses, the cooks and because of their wealth they can use another body to bear the risk and physical scars of pregnancy and childbirth. Because of their wealth, they can expect a pregnant mother to split from her self, split from her natural feelings of protection and love towards the child she is carrying, and then bear the grief of having to give up her own child, just so that she can put some food on the table and pay the bills.
Again, a big FUCK YOU to Beyoncé and Jay Z. May you both rot in the hell of your making.
@Water
ReplyDelete"they certainly have the human right to, first, know their biological parents and, second, be raised by their biological parent."
The point is well made that children should eventually know as much about their biological parents as possible, if they want to, Contact between separated parents and children is up to both parties, not just the offspring. Biological parents have rights, too.
I know plenty of adopted people who love the hell out of their adopted parents. There are slews of examples of adopted children growing up to be amazing and adjusted human beings. At the same time, there are horrible biological parents who don't even like their children, from birth, your fuzzy and warm examples of motherhood notwithstanding.
"your comment makes you look like a complete dickhead with your head stuck firmly in your 14th century arse. "
Now was that completely necessary? It does belittle you point but maybe it help you're fire up umbrage to say it. Congratulations.
"What I know women are not is this: tradeable commodities, to be bought and sold like 'things', exploited for the money-grubbery of others."
Okay, then you know all about the baby pipelines of many of the anti-abortion groups (Florida is a hotbed for this kind of thing) who tempt girls in with pregnancy services as an alternative to abortion so they may sell the resultant child in a very shady marketplace of sorts and dump the mother forthwith.
It ain't Jay and Bey doing that.
"hen bear the grief of having to give up her own child, just so that she can put some food on the table and pay the bills. "
Well, there's the rub. Is it her own child if she has no genetic connection to it? Our forays into DNA and ownership of children is fraught with deep issues, I'll give you that, but we seem to be doing the best we can under our judicial system. If you are saying that the wealthy can do what they please, by-passing judicial oversight and avoiding social norms through shady lawyers, welcome to America! Maybe that fight is broader then your individual issue.
If women feel that giving up 10 months of their life is worth the money, that is her choice. If poorer countries want to regulate how rich people can exploit their women for babies, that is CERTAINLY their right and maybe they should.
"a big FUCK YOU to Beyoncé and Jay Z."
You know this is just a Blind Item and complete bullshit, right?
If it's trickled your sense of outrage, that is sort of the point of it - to get you all worked up. Maybe you shouldn't dance like a monkey on a chain to the music being played here.
@plot
ReplyDeleteNothing you've written has convinced me that you're anything but a nong. You raise issues which are completely irrelevant in this matter, which is the issue of surrogacy. We're not talking about adoption, where mothers (for all kinds of reasons) choose to give up a child to be raised by non-biological parents. We're talking about the industrialisation, the commercialisation, of wombs for profit.
"If women feel that giving up 10 months of their life is worth the money, that is her choice. If poorer countries want to regulate how rich people can exploit their women for babies, that is CERTAINLY their right and maybe they should."
First, ask yourself this: is it a 'CHOICE' when you have no other option?? No, it's not. These women do it to keep a roof over their head, food on the table: they do it to keep living. That is not a 'choice'.
Secondly, it's the countries that DON'T legislate to protect these marginalised women where surrogacy is rife. You are suggesting that it's acceptable that countries legislate for the exploitation of these women. You are saying that you agree with the commercialisation and the industrialisation of women's bodies as 'incubators'. What did I say about living in the age of the 'Handmaid's Tale'? People like you are the problem.
@Water
ReplyDeleteI never said I agreed with anything. I'm saying that perhaps the problem is larger than the women you seek to protect and that you should take a wider view of the problems with capitalism itself. Poor people in these countries are selling their kidneys, too, and if they are put in prison for anything, organs are taken from them by force.
When wealth is the only determiner of health and well being (and respect from our government and systems) this is what we end up with. There is no preventing it. We are all victims or minions of the wealthy to feed their lifestyle.
The surrogacy industry is only another sign of such, along with the antiabortion movements that are masks for baby sellers.
NOW do you see what I'm getting at?