The strategy just doesn't make sense. An actress presumably gets botox to assure some level of longevity in her career, ie wanting to be young and fresh faced to assure gigs down the road. But this have no long-term aspect to it. Think about it: when these actresses get way older, they are going to look over-the-top absurd, and will not be cast for serious older roles that pre-botox accomplished actresses have knocked out of the park.

Except for maybe Jessica Simpson because she's a soft headed retard. And for the record those boots Rachel is wearing are not hooker boots, they're fetish boots. They not meant to walk in, they're meant to make you unable to walk.

Or you hot yet? I am.

Hmm... I think a lot of them got there because they were pretty much gorgeous (hell, Demi has made an entire career on two faces -- mouth open, mouth closed -- both with the same "intense" stare) and that is what they're trying to preserve.

It says "Hooker Books" now.

You mean like "Breakfast at Tiffany's," right?

Forget Hollywood!

It's the political porn stars who really need the stuff-- it nicely stiffens the ol' poker face, dontcha know.

One could hammer nails with the Gorgon Pelosi's unfurrowed brow.

Which, incidentally, would be putting it to better use.

Always make me reach for my reading glasses!

I hope she never gets botox. Or fake breasts. Or anything else. One of the very few truly beautiful actresses in Hollywood.

I agree with Stephanie (which is rare), Kidman looks like a plastic theater mask. I have never liked Kidman, though. Her forced, breathless way of speaking grates on my last nerve.

Actually, I think what they ought to do in pro sports is just "level the playing field" by legalizing steroids for everyone. It's not unfair if everyone's doing it, right?

And "hooker books"? Where do I get one--next to the romance novels?

After all, it may not be good for women's health and we can't possibly trust them to make their own decisions, can we?

from The Biggest Loser recently mentioned on her show that she doesn't like the idea of putting anti-perspirant under her arms because of the aluminum. So she uses botox.

genius, that one.

Botox wears off in a few months. They have to keep getting. People get the Michael Jackson by surgery, not injection of toxins.

The thing is, the best older actresses I can think of, the ones I can't keep my eyes off when they're on screen, are Jeanne Moreau and Judi Dench. Their faces are so expressive, and, when the role calls for it, they still manage to be drop dead sexy.

I know there are legitimate medical uses for Botox, but I've never understood why anyone would want to use it cosmetically. Not only does it remove expression, it's the world's deadliest toxin. If there are only cosmetic reasons to use it, why would anyone choose an injection of poison?

Just kidding. Thanks for pointing out my (rather hilarious) typo in the text. It's fixed now. A Google search for hooker books (I was curious!) turns up the "Stitch N Bitch" title, "The Happy Hooker." And I bet Rachel Weisz could rock that, too.

Chronic perspiration was actually one of the original medical applications for botox.

Another one was migraines -- thats how people found out they could freeze their foreheads and make them not wrinkle.

I did not know that. I stand corrected.

I think using it could become a habit of sorts though. Either way, it makes people look completely ridiculous.

How could anyone possibly enforce such a thing? I have a friend in her late 50s who used to be a model, and she gets a little Botox around her eyes, but her expression is not gone, or frozen, at all. She still has some crinkling at the outside corners but the wrinkles don't go halfway down her cheeks anymore. She said her doctor is very careful not to overdo it, so her face looks very natural, and 10 years younger.

Why not ban breast implants, liposuction, and shaving your legs while you're at it? I have no hair on my legs and I resent the fact that a Hollywood actress can get work by manipulating her appearance in a way that I don't have to. ;^)

Ban botox? What's next? Ban push-up bras for their unfair uplift advantage? Ban makeup and hairspray, so everyone in hollywood can look like the news anchor in Michael Keaton's "Batman"? People have been chemically enhancing their assets since the Pharaohs.

If we want to ban unsavory practices in Hollywood, how about get rid of papparazzi, gossip magazines, and multi-thousand-dollar swag bags at awards shows (actually, maybe just ban awards shows?)

Besides, Botox doesn't necessarily create a more beautiful woman. Nicole Kidman is a perfect example of this. Over-botoxing (like over-face-lifting, over-collagen-injecting, over-breast-implanting, over-chin-enhancing, and over-nose-jobbing) is a self-correcting problem.

Who are we to ban botox for actors?

We (i.e. the public) did not ban steroids from baseball or any other sports. It was the leagues themselves who did it. It was the employors -- or their associations -- that have banned their players from using (some) controlled substances, even if legally perscribed by a physician.

If the movie studios want to ban it, it's up to them. It is not up to us. We can make no such decision.

However, I think that evidence from sports shows us that the public likes great performances, whether or they obtioned with employor-banned substances -- even if the sports media and other old fogies have coniptions about them.

Is botox performance enhanding? Well, if the job is to look young (and pretty), it seems that it is. If the job to look expressive, it might not be. What kind of job does Nicole Kidman have?

Rachel Wiesz doesn't respect a woman's right to CHOOSE!

Maybe we'd be better served to ban overpriced shoes and bric-a-brac stores, because those things don't help a lady's career or her appearance!

Anyway, what to do? Women who become acting-stars because of their looks (unfortunately still a big chunk of the Hollywood actresses these days) are never guaranteed to age beautifully.

Kidman owes much of her success to her beauty. If she were to become a wrinkly old-looking crone, she would simply not be able to work as much as she does with her treatments. The upside might be that we'd see better acting from our Hollywood starlets, but the downside might be that we never see any of them for more than a 10-20 year career.

And a major catch (from a Hollywood "star-system" perspective) is that you just can't tell who is still going to be a knockout at the age of 60.

So how would you know to cast them at 25?