>> HAVING a baby without nasty stretch marks is all the rage among rich
>> socialites.
>
> Just out of curiosity, do they have any evidence that that's why they
> are doing it? And not for the reasons that 99.9% of people use
> surrogacy, namely that they can't have a baby themselves? Rich people
> can be infertile too -- esp. when, like Alex Kucyznski, they're 40 years
> old.
And a quick goggle shows that is indeed the case, according to both the Post's own Liz Smith and Gawker:
http://www.nypost.com/seven/01272008/gossip/liz/journo_awaits_stork_759131.htm
http://gawker.com/349658/someone-is-having-alex-kuczynskis-baby
The couple tried lots of times and tried this only when doing it themselves turned out to be impossible. Just like anybody else. But because surrogacy sets of the yuck factor in lots of people, Page Six decided to invent a new fad that would be fascinatingly outrageous if it were any truth to it.
BTW, this google also revealed why:
> [Interesting that the Post doesn't think it's necessary to identify
> Alex Kuczynski, the NYT reporter whose father is an investment banker
> & former finance minister of Peru, and who covers the rich and their
> pursuits for the paper.]
She's frigging everywhere in the New York gossip columns! Aka "rich glamorous journo." Who proves you can still be fascinating at 40. NY print gossipeers love that, mostly being 40+ themselves.
Michael