Tm4074

ATRL told me this album aged like milk, what happened?

By then BOAF will have the record

Jennifer Lawrence

Ariana is also the only female artist to have two songs in the top 10 longest charting female solo songs of all-time (7 rings and WCBF)

The vast majority of this site are younger millennials and older Gen Z that were the target age demographic for Hannah Montana and nostalgia is a hell of a drug. The fact that some people are claiming that HM was enough for legend status and she doesn't have to prove herself anymore? Lmao sure okay. In the real world your legacy being regulated to your sitcom character from a tween show when it's been 20 years since said show debuted is NOT a good thing. People act like Miley's in her 50s and this is expected. She's only 33.

And some of yall still have the audacity to say Ariana has no impact and influence. ADÉLA just adds to the obvious Ariana influence evident among many of these Gen Z pop stars. Happy for her though! The song is a bop. Seems this era will be her breakthrough in the mainstream even though some were disappointed she strayed from the sound she adopted on her EP.

How is my take anti-capitalist or entitled? I'm not for making surrogacy illegal, I'm for regulating it and allowing it under specific circumstances which was its original intent. That's not anti-capitalist, that's regulated capitalism and quite a neutral position. Wouldn't thinking you're owed biological children because you have the financial means to afford a practice like surrogacy be considered entitlement? Nobody is owed children regardless of your socioeconomic status. Capitalism shouldn't be applicable in every aspect of society and life, and it isn't. That is how the developed world actually works. If everything in life had a price tag and could be purchased for those with the means this world would be significantly worse than it is. The vast majority of developed countries have a hybrid system of capitalism and socialism, the question is how much of each and where to apply it. This is why ethics are important. Capitalism isn't ethical by design but we don't need it in certain aspects of society. For example, I don't think capitalism has an ethical place in healthcare, most developed countries follow the same principle except for infamously the United States. I don't believe just because one has the financial freedom to do something and it's allowed, that they should or that it's the right thing to do. Where do we draw the line? That's an argument that opens a huge can of worms well beyond the surrogacy debate. We used to be able to purchase human beings, it was called slavery. Just because those rich, white men had the legal and financial ability to purchase humans at one point, does that mean it's okay? What about child labor? Not equating those examples with surrogacy but just because something is allowed under capitalism doesn't make it okay and that we shouldn't question it. Surrogacy should be highly regulated and controlled considering the necessity of a living human female to successfully carry out the practice. Using the right wing "pull yourself up from your bootstraps" argument to defend potential exploitative practices and dangerous cultural precedents being promoted by the super wealthy's increasingly noticeable participation in commercial surrogacy is crazy. You responded to me that you dislike how this is turning into ammunition for a stan war which I agree with. Yet you're interpreting my response as a direct attack on Gaga. I literally said this isn't about her specifically and I don't know or need to know her individual circumstances, but about the larger context of commercial surrogacy and how the super wealthy take advantage of it. Denying that reality is naive.

Yeah, I want to reiterate this is not an exclusive criticism of Lady Gaga, far from it. I think focusing in on one particular wealthy celebrity using surrogacy as a path to parenthood is missing the point. I and the rest of the public do not know the specific circumstances of Gaga's experience or if she exhausted all methods before considering surrogacy. It's all speculation, and she doesn't owe us any details about her personal medical history or her family planning. However it is important to note how wealthy women are able to focus on their career in their prime (20s and 30s) thus allowing them to postpone parenthood for their 40s by affording these alternative methods. They also don't have to sacrifice their health, body and overall well-being to carry and birth a baby. It's often said that pregnancy and giving birth is the most dangerous thing a woman will do. If very wealthy couples (and single wealthy men as well which is absolutely a thing) are allowed to rent a womb for a price while the rest of us regular women have to suffer through pregnancy and birth (if they choose to have children), it's absolutely fostering a new standard that perceives pregnancy/birth as a duty of the have-nots and the privileged are exempt. There are very few things in life that unite us, for the most part women of all backgrounds and socioeconomic statuses experienced the universal reality (or more appropriately the universal suffering) of pregnancy and birth. Aristocrats and royalty had to give birth to produce a heir just like the peasants had to give birth to have them work in the fields and sustain their livelihoods. Now that surrogacy is becoming normalized and accepted among the wealthy, that is no longer the case which is alarming. The amount of celebrity couples having children via surrogacy just in these past few years should be concerning for us as a society. Imagine how many non-famous very wealthy couples are exploiting this method. It's hard to believe this increase in surrogacy always boils down to fertility issues considering there are various other methods available before landing on surrogacy. I'd argue a decent percentage of these super wealthy couples are accurately calculating the risks of pregnancy/birth and paying their way out of it but still get to adhere to the societal expectations of having biological children and having heirs to their multimillion dollar estates to continue their generational wealth. They get the reward with no risk. I don't feel comfortable with that principle being applied to pregnancy, birth and parenthood on a large scale among a specific group of super privileged and wealthy individuals. Surrogacy should be used for what it was intended for: a last ditch effort to parenthood after all other methods were exhausted and unsuccessful. Growing up my familiarity with surrogacy was mostly gay couples having a close friend or relative voluntarily agreeing to carry their baby with a donor egg as a charitable act for their friends/family so they could have a child as they couldn't on their own. It wasn't this commercial enterprise that it is today.

I think the discussion surrounding the ethics of surrogacy is valid to a degree, it's a moral gray area so it's important to apply nuance. The recent influx of wealthy couples using surrogacy is validating what we all know. Pregnancy is a huge risk for a healthy woman, never mind a woman with a health condition, and those with money and resources are choosing to not put their body through it and use the surrogate option. Pregnancy (or lack of) is going to become a symbol of socioeconomic status. The wealthy can avoid it and still have biological children to continue their bloodline and generational wealth. The rest of us don't have that option. I think this is primarily a wealth inequality and class issue, not a feminist issue. Btw I'm a woman with progressive views that has criticized the moralizing behavior of the left and its use in stan culture. This is not about Gaga but the trend that is happening on a larger scale among the wealthiest class. It's a little dystopian if you ask me. I think we all can remove the stan behavior and use our critical thinking skills for one second. Surrogacy was intended for couples that couldn't have biological children naturally and/or struggled with fertility, it wasn't intended for the uber wealthy to rent a womb to avoid the medical risks, physical discomfort and negative effects on personal vanity that comes with pregnancy. I think surrogacy is a good option as a last resort, it shouldn't be the first option. It needs to be highly regulated and should only be used if absolutely necessary after everything else fails. I don't think it should be normalized among the uber wealthy. It's just another way to separate the haves from the have-nots.

LMAOOO Ed had no spine but I love seeing P!nk take L's. She has tormented us with her obnoxious "not like other girls" act since 2000 and has gotten away with it.

Justin has the catalogue and the legacy, he just needs to start trying on stage and do a full performance but with how he's been lately it's not promising. If he decides to have some energy and enthusiasm on stage he'd be a good show. Harry would be fine…just fine. Nothing special but not horrible. Only two halftimes this decade have been headlined by women and we're heading into 2027. Hasn't been a female headliner since Rihanna. And JLo/Shakira had to share. What is Jay Z's problem? There are plenty of female artists with the legacy and catalogue to do the halftime. But we'll get half assed Justin Bieber and Harry Styles with only handful of solo hits.

Into You was charting well before the tour and has been doing 1m+ for over a year now. It started re-entering in 2025 doing 1.2/1.3m daily. It has been consistent since so it's not because of petal/tour.

It's a transaction between two parties so there is bound to be exploitation to a degree, but if the surrogate is being properly compensated for their service and agreed to it on clear terms, why should I have strong opinions about it? It's not like anybody is being forced into it. It's a moral gray area, like most things in life. Personally I find it off putting that rich celebrity women are now using surrogates to have children at an increasing rate. I get it, pregnancy seems miserable and it's dangerous, but the regular people that use surrogacy seem to do it out of necessity because they weren't able to get pregnant naturally and methods like IVF were unsuccessful, or they're a gay couple and have no choice except for surrogacy to have biological children. It's typically a last resort for couples to have biological children. Now it's becoming a trend for super wealthy straight couples to rent a womb to avoid the risks of pregnancy. Pregnancy (or lack of) becoming indicative of socioeconomic status is concerning and kinda dystopian, tbh. I think surrogacy should be highly regulated and a last resort. I have a hard time believing some of these famous women using surrogacy as of late all have serious medical reasons they can't naturally carry a child. Normal people don't get to skip pregnancy because they have a medical condition that may result in complications. Pregnancy is dangerous for even the most physically healthy women. I'm not going to go after those who use surrogacy with moral pitchforks though because at the end of the day not my life or decision, but it's definitely a weird practice that deserves to be called out for being weird and creating a culture that views pregnancy as a job performed by the lower class.

MBF was a year after SnS. She needs to prove that base will stick with her longer. They might not resonate with her anymore when/if she pivots and jump ship. Happened to Miley. Happened to Katy. Silly to assume loyalty after two successful albums released within a year of each other.

It can go either way, really depends on her choices and the timing. She has pivoted from her earlier work to the brand/image she has now but her previous work flopped so it wasn't like it was successful before. She can evolve for sure but the question is will the public and her fans be here for it? Katy pivoted from Christian singer-songwriter to Alanis Morisette cosplay to the sexy pin-up girl bubblegum pop-rock and dance-pop hitmaker to "purposeful pop" with a tragic haircut. She was only successful with the one image/sound and all her other pivots failed to resonate. Sabrina doesn't have the vocal talent and crossover appeal with other genres artists like Beyoncé or Ariana have to pivot from pop hitmaker to something more substantive. She also doesn't have the singer-songwriter appeal that Taylor has. She's not inventive and boundary pushing with image like Gaga. She's not a performer/dancer to the level of someone like Britney or Janet. Her image/appeal/sound isn't something that fosters a loyal audience beyond her appeal in the moment similar to Katy. She's doesn't have a definitive "thing" that defines her and no her humor/personality in her lyrics isn't enough. Good news is she seems to have better instincts and taste compared to Katy so that differentiates her. But she's still too image/brand reliant and coasting off the country-pop trend to elevate herself for me to confidently say she can successfully pivot. I'm looking forward to see what she does next though bc she's the one Gen Z artist that has to pivot for her next album and that's an interesting story to follow. Tbh if I were Sabrina I would be watching my back for Zara bc if Zara starts making better music she has some strong competition since Zara has charisma/personality for days, a strong brand identity, a great dancer, an excellent performer and a skilled vocalist.