Khloe Kardashian creepily describes how she was a ‘control freak’ with her surrogate

Khloe Kardashian appeared on Kelly Clarkson’s show this week and they spent almost the entire time talking about their kids. I think this was Khloe’s first solo appearance on a talk show since welcoming her son over the summer? I’m pretty sure that’s the case. She didn’t tell Kelly the name of her son, but she did give a “hint” that it’s not “Snowy.” Apparently, True has been calling her brother Snowy, so maybe that’s his nickname. What would that be a nickname for, though? Snowell? Snowstin? Trisnow?

Khloe also spoke about how she’s done having kids now that she has one of each, saying: “Shop is closed. I have one of both, and I think I’m good.” Well, I’m sure Khloe is done, but I bet Tristan keeps having children with other women. Khloe welcomed NotSnowy via surrogacy, although I’m still unclear if she’s actually talking about a gestational carrier and not a surrogate. The difference is the egg – if NotSnowy was conceived with Khloe’s fertilized egg, then she had a gestational carrier and not a surrogate. In any case, Khloe is kind of a creep about the woman she calls her surrogate, saying:

“If it wasn’t for Kimberly, I definitely wouldn’t have been as comfortable. I watched her go through her journey, and I’m so grateful about how open she’s always been.”

While Kim was “comfortable” with her surrogate, Khloé shared that she felt more “particular” and like “such a control freak.” The “Revenge Body” alum clarified that while she “love[s]” her surrogate, the woman was a “stranger” she had to “trust.”

“She was amazing, but I [was like], ‘I need you sitting next to me all the time. I need to know what are you doing, what are you eating,’” she recalled.

[From Page Six]

That’s not being a control freak, that’s being completely inappropriate and creepy with a woman you hired to carry your fetus. Khloe’s surrogate isn’t just a vessel-for-hire to be controlled by Khloe. This isn’t f–king Gilead and the surrogate is not Oftristan. I’m actually really disgusted that Khloe said this like it was perfectly reasonable or just some quirk about how she’s such a control freak.

Photos courtesy of Khloe’s IG, screencap courtesy of the Kelly Clarkson Show.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

45 Responses to “Khloe Kardashian creepily describes how she was a ‘control freak’ with her surrogate”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Ms Snickerpants says:

    Disgusting people are going to be disgusting.

    • JackieJacks says:

      From what I have seen over the years, The K-Klan seem to view everything and everyone as a commodity to be exploited or used depending on the situation. Doesn’t matter if significant other, family etc. I’m actually not surprised with her comments. I’m thinking when you are insanely rich enough to be able to do this and live in a cash lined bubble like they do – they would think it’s ok to have this attitude, doesn’t make it ok tho. I have to assume in khloes mind the gestational carrier or surrogate was ‘the help’.

  2. Bettyrose says:

    Not Gilead? It’s pretty close. Women like Khloe who doesn’t have any sense of herself beyond her body and personal needs can’t understand other women as well rounded human beings. When it comes down, the KarJenners are going to be the most dangerous type of women. Rich, coddled, intellectually incurious and unaware of the humanity of women who don’t look like them.

    • CooCoo Catchoo says:

      Very well said!

    • today says:

      I did a term paper on Gestational Surrogacy. There are actual farms where GS stay and are monitored, unable to leave. Gilead is happening -right now- for the poor and desperate in many countries where it’s legal. NO one should use vanity as an excuse a la the out of touch K’s…really enrages as I’m not in a rabbit hole of conspiracy, rather peer reviewed & factually sourced material.

  3. Noki says:

    She seems to be some sort of neat freak and has said she has OCD, could that be a reason for this behaviour?

    • Noxy says:

      It might be a reason, but it’s not an excuse. There are meds that help with intrusive thoughts when they interfere with your life. My husband takes them for his OCD and it has been miraculous. Not everyone wants meds, and that’s fine, but when it’s affecting you to the point you’re putting your surrogate through completely inappropriate measures to satiate your obsessive thoughts, you probably need them.

      I get wanting your surrogate (or gestational carrier) to be healthy and doing what’s best for your growing kid, but you do not get to micromanage every second of her life for any reason. She was probably well-compensated, but that’s not the point.

    • J. Ferber says:

      How extra can she be?

      • RaisesHand says:

        Who else is OVER the entitled wealthy using mental illness as an excuse for overall assHatness??

    • Waitwhat? says:

      I watched the embedded clip and Kelly says something like, “Is it being a control freak, or is it just knowing what you want?” Which, on its face, is quite reasonable – but when you apply that to the Kardashians it becomes more sinister because a) they have the money to buy people’s services so they can have exactly what they want, and those services include the use of a womb; and b) you have to wonder if some of this exerting of “control” this is a response to NOT getting what they want from their partners (which is in part because they make horrible choices of partner); and c) what sort of skills do they actually have to cope when things don’t go the way they want and money can’t fix it (e.g. Kanye)?

  4. Formerly Lithe says:

    That’s horrifying. I hope the woman is ok. Imagine dealing with all of that and pregnancy hormones at the same time. Also how did Khloe think that stressing out her gestational carrier could possibly have been good for the baby’s development in utero?

  5. Hyperbolme says:

    I can’t speculate as to exactly what Khloe’s words here really mean because Kardashians are nothing if not hyperbolic. However this kind of control in a situation like that is not unusual. Some people have it in their GC contracts that the carrier has to report everything they eat or has to eat all organic or can’t get their hair dyed or can’t have sex the whole time. People using a GC are actually literally buying a vessel for hire. However, that GC agrees to the contract, that’s the difference between this and Gilead.

    • Fabiola says:

      I don’t see anything wrong with asking the person that you hired to carry your baby what they are eating. Nutrition is very important to a growing baby and what the carrier is eating will affect the baby inside her. I wouldn’t want a woman to just be eating junk food all day or not eating enough.

    • Huckle says:

      Totally agree.

    • Molly says:

      I hope this level of control was agreed to by the carrier and she was compensated accordingly. (Because I’m sure that woman earned EVERY penny of that contract.)

    • whatWHAT? says:

      thanks for this. yeah, the K family does exaggerate, so who knows how much of a micromanager she really was, but…

      …yeah, when you’re paying tens of thousands of dollars (sometimes more) for a person to carry a baby for you, there are things written into the contract about what you can and cannot put into your body. my friend did this (hired a surrogate), and there was a clause about her (the surrogate) not having sex with her husband until after conception via “the baster”. if it was determined, after birth and DNA testing, that the father of the baby was actually the surrogates husband, then the deal was off.

      also in the contract were dietary and activity restrictions, etc. the idea is that you are paying someone to deliver a healthy baby to you and while things can go wrong during pregnancy, the idea is that the surrogate or gestational carrier will do EVERYTHING in their power to maintain a healthy pregnancy. yes there are always risks but the contracts are there to mitigate risk. no alcohol, no caffeine, no skydiving, etc. and my friend and her husband visited, like monthly or more, to make sure she was taking care of herself. being involved in the surrogate’s pregnancy is not creepy…it’s protecting your investment (sorry, I know that sounds terrible but when you’re talking anywhere up to $100,000 or more, plus all medical care, you want your money spent to be worth it)

      and, as you aptly noted, the surrogate AGREES to and signs the contract. if she isn’t down with the terms, she doesn’t go through with it.

      • Allegra says:

        Sorry — am I reading this right? Your friend hired a woman to gestate/carry a baby, and the egg was the carrier’s? Meaning the baby was the surrogate’s biological child?? I’ve gone through IVF myself, and listen to a lot of podcasts and consume a lot of media about All Things Infertility, but this is literally the first time I’ve heard of this kind of arrangement. Normally if a couple cannot produce their own embryo to transfer into the uterus of the gestational carrier/surrogate, then either a donor egg or donor sperm (depending on which member of the couple is infertile) is used to create the embryo which is then implanted in the carrier… who normally has no biological relation to the resulting fetus. To have a surrogate use her OWN egg to conceive is unheard of! The legal ramifications are obviously so fraught.

      • lionfire says:

        @WhatWhat? JFC, this sounds so awful I can’t even….
        A million, a billion, no matter, a woman is risking her life (let’s be real here-pregnancy is potentatialy, and very easily becomes, a life threatining condition) just to bring a child with your/genetic material you’ve* chosen, and you control her to this point??

        This is Gilead in the making people. No gratitude for the person bringing your child to the world-just a list of your rules. It’s a prime example how ruthless capitalism (10000$ people! She bought that body for 9 months so….), Relativism (carrying fetus and birthing child as just another tramsnsaction) and entitlement could be a paving on the road to inhumanity.

    • Waitwhat? says:

      I guess my only response to that is to question what sort of women typically become gestational carriers/surrogates.

      In the UK, you can’t pay for surrogacy (although I think “expenses” can be covered) so my understanding is that the women who do it tend to have genuinely altruistic motivations. I think once money becomes involved, the dynamic changes. Yes, the surrogate agrees, but the power balance is going to be quite different if the parents are “buying” the use of a person’s body, and I guess I wonder what sort of circumstances a woman would be in to agree to that.

      I honestly know nothing about who acts as surrogates in the US and have read zero research in it, so that’s a genuine question.

      • Lisa says:

        there’s not a lot of regulation in the US and imho it is predatory

        a poor person renting an organ for what is a lot of money to them but not a lot of money to the buyer is so problematic

      • Icey says:

        Allegra, technically a surrogate has a genetic link to the child, while a gestational carrier does not. Marketing/news stories use the words interchangeably, but if you are sitting in an ivf clinic or writing a contract they are definitely different. Typically surrogacy tends to happen with siblings….sister will have issues with eggs or brother will have same sex partner, so the surrogate sister will use her own eggs with siblings partners sperm.

        Any reputable clinic will vet a gc contract very very carefully. There are also agencies that match. Of course, there are shady clinics out there as well.

        The FDA audits any clinics that are working with donor tissue very closely (you can go to and read the warning letters to clinics that do not pass FDA inspections to see what they get cited for).

        I can’t remember how long ago it was…. 7or 8 years maybe, that India outlawed using Indian women as gestational carriers for anyone except Indian citizens. You cannot ship embryos in or out of India without approval from the ministry. This was because India had become a baby farm for western women looking for cheap gcs. There definitely still countries that Western Women go to for cheap gcs. Ukraine was one until recently. Indonesia is another.

      • Icey says:

        Re: paid amount. This wasn’t for surrogacy, but the the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (accrediting and ethics body for ivf clinics) and SART lost a class action lawsuit thet codified payment caps on what egg donors could be paid. One of the reasons put forth to avoid economic exploitation of women. However they got sued for restraint of trade and lost…. It was ruled that women could charge “what the market will bear” for their oocytes. I can see both sides of the argument. Harvesting eggs has risks, including increased cancer risks, for women who undergo the procedure. Why shouldn’t a person get paid for that risk? But the danger of exploitation is also high, and the promise of high payouts tempts the economically vulnerable for sure.
        If you want to learn more about the suit…

    • Aurora says:

      It all lies on whether she literally kept her GC in sight all the time if that was not economically compensated and agreed upon. If I hired a surrogate and had the means, for sure I’d establish ways to keep tabs on her. Particularly when it comes to nutrition, physical activities and lifestyle. Not sure about the ‘sit next to me all the time’ though. Tbh I couldnt devote that attention to someone else, and I also find such degree of intrusiveness disrespectful. Not to mention that the accompanying stress can harm the pregnancy.

  6. Tea4Two says:

    Wise words from a therapist I once visited: Controlling, or viewing oneself as, is simply a synonym for ANNOYING.

    Replace every reference to being ‘Controlling’ with being ‘Annoying’ and it completely changes the dialogue.

    • TrixC says:

      As a European I feel deeply uncomfortable with the (lack of) regulation of surrogacy in the US. I think it’s exploitative and the way Khloe talks about her surrogate sickens me.

    • Lindsay says:

      That seems like terrible advice. They aren’t the same. At all. Of course changing words changes the dialogue.

    • SAS says:

      Controlling and annoying are NOT interchangeable words. A person being controlling is attempting to exhibit power over another/a situation. Inserting the more mild and variable “annoying” is frankly dangerous in some contexts.

  7. Marion says:

    I think she acted this way because she feared something would go wrong…again!
    She has trust issues because of what she went through with Tristan..
    The vibe I’m getting from this clip is that that she *knew* Tristan had already knocked the other woman up and despite that, she went on with the surrogate thing.
    Had something wrong happened like the surrogate losing the baby, she couldn’t have had another child with Tristan.
    She can relax now, everything has gone just like whe wanted it… Shop is closed!

  8. Ceej says:

    It’s unclear if she did this for 9 months or that was just her fears going in, which I can understand. You’d be so worried that someone could unintentionally harm the baby through habits and she was probably very aware of her own health while pregnant and learning to cope with being powerless on it for her son’s journey.

    Overall she’s always gotten my sympathy for having so many things attacking her mindset since they became reality stars – not looking the same; being bigger etc. (don’t agree with how she’s dealt with those things but it’s her body and life). I saw a pic of Kim’s daughter chicago posing and like… a kid under 7 doesn’t need to be glammed and in an actual pose. Chicago looked like she’d been set in position like Kim’s doll. They also had a pic of True “posing” and she just looked like she was being herself.

    What I’m saying is, I feel like she’s trying not to pass her issues on to True and she’s very aware she has them (but maybe she isn’t the best at addressing them in herself) and I wish her the best. I hope she can now truly disengage from this guy and give herself the relationship she’s after.

    • Houlihan says:

      Thank you. I feel the same. I said it below but I’ll say it again here — on top of everything you bring up, she also had a traumatic brain injury as a teenager, repeated medical traumas between that and her first husband’s ODing, she saw how Kim’s first surrogate’s identity was revealed by paparazzi, and she clearly has legitimate OCD intrusive thoughts. She’s been through a lot in a really toxic family, and she seems like a really good mother.

      100% agree that she’s trying not to pass all of that on to her kids, even if she struggles with them herself.

  9. Arhus says:

    I’m hope the surrogate knew what she was getting into and paid pretty well for Khloe to creep on her!

  10. Houlihan says:

    I dunno, the way she said it just sounds like hyperbole to me. Like the way I talk about my OCD intrusive thoughts/compulsions and a lot of my friends do, too. If we go to a hotel and I say “I was like, we need to disassemble the entire bed and go over every inch to look for bed bugs,” that’s not what I *actually* said it did. It’s what the intrusive thought in my brain was telling me I had to do.

    Khloe 100% has control issues and the whole KarJenner clan are body autonomy and exploitation nightmares. But Khloe has a traumatic brain injury, medical trauma, anxiety, and strong indicators of OCD compulsions (organizing pantry, stocking up on thing, exercise/diet, etc). If just sounds to me like she’s describing an intrusive thought/compulsion with hyperbole, because self-deprecating humor is one if the coping mechanisms OCD folk use to interrupt the cycle. Totally in poor taste and not cool when talking about a gestational carrier, but still not the same as actually doing it.

  11. Caty says:

    Honestly what is really creepy is how that whole family appears to protect the privacy of the male children while simultaneously putting their female children front and center in so many of their social media posts. Khloe and Kylie announced their daughter’s names fairly quickly after birth (Kim did announce the male names fairly quickly but her son’s are not featured anywhere near as much on social media as her daughter’s) yet we still don’t know their son’s names. All of the female children in that family are being groomed (imho) to be future “mini me’s” while the male children will more than likely get to make their own decisions on how much is put out there publicly as they grow.

    • ME says:

      Kim and her sisters are going to rely heavily on their daughters to carry the “legacy”. The boys will be treated like Rob.

  12. FeatherDuk says:

    There is no doubt, we are living a dystopian Handmaid’s tale society.

    • Jo says:

      This is a very sensitive subject because it touches upon the inability to have children or to continue to have children but the way K talked about “doing surrogacy” was unsettling to me. It sounded as if the whole thing was a trip to get some Botox or consume something. My parents had a great deal of pain to have me, their only child. But when they tell me their journey I admire the way they chose to stop trying because it was their reality. I am not sure the class issue is addressed here but the K’s are a study in conscious class division whereby the rich can buy bodies. Meanwhile, the notion of acceptance and letting go is overstepped and we live in an infantile society where trying to live a life with the cards you’re dealt is not an option. It’s mistaking creativity and expansion of the self with artificially and negation of the self.

      • sparrow says:

        That is a wonderful comment. So interesting and right on the money. Says everything I feel about the subject and would want to say (if I could without the personal background). Thank you, Jo.

  13. Bean says:

    What if Tristan got someone else pregnant and they made some strange Kris Jenner-like arrangement where Khloe adopts the kid from his side piece and label her a surrogate? Random, I know, but this whole thing sounds unbelievable to me.

  14. Mabs A'Mabbin says:

    An empty vessel. The puns write themselves. And all irony is lost lol.

  15. ME says:

    Is she like this with her nannies, chef, and maid? Could you imagine. I’d just yell “ok then go do it yourself !”. The micro-managing would be too much. No wonder they make everyone around them sign NDA’s.

  16. E says:

    I don’t think either one of them came off very well in this conversation. It is classist af.

  17. Annalise says:

    I think Khloe exaggerated her behavior with her gc/surrogate, because she thought it would make her sound funny/cute/quirky/interesting in a “[wagging finger] Khloe!! No you DIDN’T!!”
    I think when celebrities go on talk shows there’s alot of pressure to be entertaining and likable, and some celebrities live in such a bubble, where no one calls them on their shit, that they develop a very warped sense of what is acceptable, particularly in how they interact with other people, and sometimes this becomes apparent when they try to share “anecdotes” that demonstrate this.
    Im not saying that I definitely DONT think Khloe actually was a psycho with her gc/surrogate, I just think it’s equally possible that she was trying to ham in up for the audience and get some laughs, not realizing she was potentially being cringe.

  18. jferber says:

    She really should never have a surrogate again. Just as she should really stop having children with Tristan. Just as she should start dating someone, ANYONE, else just to rip his fangs from her throat. Again, money and brains (witness the Cambridges) sometimes have nothing to do with one another.

  19. jferber says:

    Annalise, you have a good point. And I did love when Khloe shouted, “Liar!” when Tristan talked about growing their family on the show. Girl does have spunk. Hope she keeps it and sees the light. Dude is a dud. Good-looking as hell, yes, but can’t (no, won’t: it’s a choice) keep it in his pants.