If you read here, you know I love me some Janet, though I'm not as cray cray about her as I once was. I'm still a big fan, but I had trouble supporting the crap music her troll of an ex-boyfriend threw at us for years. That said, her latest album is fantastic and I was hopeful her tour would follow suit. Her last few tours were...lacking, to say the least. She didn't even take a full band with her, settling on pre-recorded music for one tour and a three piece band and DJ for another. I didn't go to either because I refuse to pay for glorified karaoke, no matter who is singing it, but thought about attending this year's tour. And then I found out she was still carrying only a three piece band and only doing a handful of songs off her new album, and not even the best songs. I opted not to take a friend up on an offer for tickets and it's a good thing I did because the tour was postponed indefinitely once news broke that JJ is expecting - at 50 years of age. Normally, I'm not one to judge others on life decisions because it's not like I make the best life decisions my damn self. However, I have to say I don't quite understand a few things about her current situation, such as the timing.
Much of Janet's 2016 had already been spent postponing tour dates, supposedly because of vocal issues. And then came the big announcement a few months back that she urgently needed some kinda medical care and would have to put the whole thing on hold for an undetermined amount of time. People worried about her health, especially with the previous health woes early in the year, but she said it wasn't that serious and the story died down. Weeks before her 50th birthday, it was announced that she's with child and, oops, there goes the remainder of the 2016 tour dates. Supposedly, 2017 will be when the tour resumes but let's be real - it's highly unlikely a new mother, and one of her age, will be heading out on tour. This isn't a 20-year-old pop starlet who's gonna snap back into fighting shape within a few months. What I don't get is why she and her husband planned this (presumably) IVF business during a damn tour. It's not like the tour just came up outta nowhere and it's also not like she just happened to get knocked up the old-fashioned way, which is kinda what it seems like she wants us to believe. The second postponement screams something along the lines of needing to take a break because the IVF may actually be working. It's nearly impossible to have an, "Oops" baby at 50. And though it does happen, one would have to have some kinda luck to be; A Jackson, an international pop legend, have a husband a few decades their junior, AND get naturally knocked up by the husband at an advanced age all in one lifetime. Clearly, they were trying for a kid so why even plan a tour? Even if you thought a baby was a long shot, the cost of scrapping the whole thing (and the fan outrage over the ticket fiasco) has to be more costly than just never scheduling it in the first place. And it's not like she needed the money, she's and millionaire married to a billionaire. I don't get that line of thinking at all. Just release your album, give thanks that it was well-received and retreat to the desert to have a kid.
The other thing I don't understand is any the hell anyone has kids after a certain age. I'm 35 and I question whether it's responsible for me to procreate within the next five years, and I certainly won't reproduce after 40. Men believe we have all the time in the world to have kids, and many do so well into their 50's and even 60's, but just because you can doesn't mean you should. What isn't as prominent in news stories about autism as vaccination is the link between older fathers and autism. Granted, that isn't an issue in Janet's situation since her husband is fairly young, but it's something I doubt many older potential fathers think about. The main thing in this case is the age of the mother. Kids are exhausting. Egg-zaust-ing. At every age, nearly everyday. Keeping up with an 8-year-old at my age is a challenge, I can't imagine doing so while pushing 60. Not to mention the generational gap. I remember one or two friends in my school days having older parents who were mistaken as grandparents, and I don't remember either of them boasting about the experience. I don't think it's fair to the kid to have them so late in life. Ideally, we get to grow old with our parents before we have to say goodbye to them, but kids with much older parents don't even get that option. They're cheated right off the bat. I will be 45 when Miss N graduates high school and nearly 50 when she graduates college. If she gets married in her twenties (which she won't since she's my kid) or her thirties, there's a decent chance I'll be around to see it. But if I have a kid next year, the chances I'd be there for its wedding go down dramatically. I'd have to make it til 70 to see that one walk down an aisle. And with my health history and the potential problems that may already lie ahead, that's pretty iffy. My child would be cheated out of the chance of my being at their wedding because I made the selfish choice to have them so late in life. And here's where the other side says, "Well, not everyone finds the right person early in life", and I can sympathize with that. But maybe it's not your path to have a kid if that's the case. Miss N wasn't planned and had she not happened, I'd be single and childless right now. Maybe I'd be okay with that, maybe I wouldn't, but my stance on not procreating after a certain age would still be the same. And the risk of complications of a woman carrying a child at that age are huge, for both mother and baby. The baby could have birth defects or a disease and the mother could have any number of health problems that may follow her the rest of her life, potentially shortening that life and taking those years with mom away from the child. Obviously, I hope all goes well with the latest Jackson and everyone emerges healthy. To each their own on how they live their life and all that.
