Strollerderby

Which Celebs Refuse To Pimp Out Their Kids?

Posted by Amy S.F. Lutz

Since Brangelina's twins arrived, there's been a lot of passionate debate about the ethics of celebrities auctioning off baby pics to the highest bidder.

Me, I thought that, since Brad and Angelina have promised to donate the $11 million they've allegedly scored from People Magazine to charity, everyone wins.  Until I  read a very rational article on this practice, which pointed out that celebs like the Jolie-Pitts have so much money they could easily afford to donate $11 mil to charity WITHOUT sacrificing their children's privacy.  As Bruce Weinstein, who writes on ethics for a syndicated column, points out, "If your own parents are literally selling you out, where can one feel safe?"

Not all celebrities are raking in the big bucks for their baby pictures, however.  Which ones are taking the moral highground?

According to Gawker, a few big names were never approached to sell their babes' photos because they made it clear beforehand they weren't interested.  In this group are actresses Nicole Kidman (who recently welcomed, with husband Keith Urban, daughter Sunday Rose), Halle Berry (who celebrated the arrival of Nahla Ariela with Gabriel Aubry) and Cate Blanchett (who, with husband Andrew Upton, brought home third son Ignatius Martin in April).

Then there are those celebs who turned down big time offers for pictures of their offspring, such as Jennifer Garner and Ben Affleck (parents of Violet Anne, now 2), Courtney Cox and David Arquette (parents of Coco Riley, now 4), Sarah Jessica Parker and Matthew Broderick (parents of James Wilkie, now 5) and Salma Hayek (who last year delivered Valentina Paloma, fathered by Hayek's fiance, Francois-Henri Pinault). Several of these tots have been snapped while out and about with their parents, or had their pictures distributed for free, but in any case, these folks obviously didn't want their children to become the focus of increasingly aggressive stalking by the paparazzi.

One could argue that no matter how Brad and Angelina resolved the photo distribution question, their no-doubt gorgeous twins would still become the focus of increasingly aggressive stalking by the paparazzi.  And one would probably be right - after all, we're talking about Brangelina here!  But at least if they had held their ground, their kids would have known, when they were old enough to appreciate it, that their parents never looked at them with dollar signs in their eyes. 

Related Post:

20 Mil For Pics Of Twins


+ DIGG + STUMBLE

Comments

 

BettyWu said:

I disagree.  If the pictures willingly given are worth $11 Million, what would they be worth to the paparazzi who took them if they tried to keep the twins hidden?  What would a pap be willing to do for $11 million?  Something scary, something dangerous, something that would undoubtedly put those kids and their siblings at risk of harm.  

Selling them and giving the public access to the photos lowers the market value for candids significantly and makes the already bloodthirsty photographers a little less vicious.  I don't think they have any choice.  

& I think Cate Blanchett is a brilliant actress, but it's just not a genuine comparison.  

July 18, 2008 12:06 AM
 

bikomono said:

celebrities are so hot:

www.funkytube.net/vid.php

July 18, 2008 5:42 AM
 

slowburn said:

I'm sure Brangelina wouldn't miss 11M of their own if they gave it to charity. But I agree with BettyWu.

The others don't compare. I don't see people rushing Jennifer Garner/Cate Blanchette/Nicole (no longer Mrs. Cruise) Kidman's house/hospital/children/car-in-traffic to get shots.

July 18, 2008 12:14 PM
 

Kelly said:

Very good points.  And what kid would refuse having their pictures on the cover of ONE magazine for $11M to go to charity.  If their parents raise them to be humanitarians like themselves they won't see it has being pimped out.  Only as having helped someone somewhere live a better life.  I personally think those that keep the money in their pockets (JLo, Nicole Richie) are the ones pimping their babies to live a plush lifestyle.

July 18, 2008 4:39 PM

About Amy S.F. Lutz

Amy S.F. Lutz's work has appeared in dozens of literary journals, including Cream City Review, The American Poetry Review, Puerto del Sol, and Mid-American Review. She and her husband have five children. Amy and her sister chronicle their adventures in communal living in their blog whoelsewantstoliveinmyhouse.com

in

GROUP BLOGS

  • Strollerderby

    The smartest, funniest, most exhaustive parenting blog in the blogosphere.
  • Droolicious

    Modern design for modern parents.
  • FameCrawler

    Your daily baby celebrity fix.
back to blog homepage