Anonymous wrote:She was posting nude/nearly nude photos before the conservatorship ended. This is not about empowerment or reclaiming her body, it’s mental illness on full display with no one to protect her now.

Do you think everyone who poses nude is mentally ill?

Anonymous wrote:She was posting nude/nearly nude photos before the conservatorship ended. This is not about empowerment or reclaiming her body, it’s mental illness on full display with no one to protect her now.

+1

She was posting nude/nearly nude photos before the conservatorship ended. This is not about empowerment or reclaiming her body, it’s mental illness on full display with no one to protect her now.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is posting yourself nude considered empowering? I will never ever understand that

Me either.

Because she's reclaiming her body that others have profited from and exploited since childhood.

By displaying it to everyone else?

NP. By her own choice. She can do it.

The reality is that she is an adult abuse survivor whose body was exploited by the people who should have protected her. She is finally able to make her own choices. Do I think it is great for her to pose nude? No. But I would literally support her if she walked nude down Central Park, because it is how she is reclaiming a terrible history.

I sort of agree with you but am not sure how much she is thinking about what she is doing. It seems posting sexy photos or nude photos is all she knows how to do these days.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is posting yourself nude considered empowering? I will never ever understand that

Me either.

Because she's reclaiming her body that others have profited from and exploited since childhood.

By displaying it to everyone else?

NP. By her own choice. She can do it.

The reality is that she is an adult abuse survivor whose body was exploited by the people who should have protected her. She is finally able to make her own choices. Do I think it is great for her to pose nude? No. But I would literally support her if she walked nude down Central Park, because it is how she is reclaiming a terrible history.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is posting yourself nude considered empowering? I will never ever understand that

Me either.

Because she's reclaiming her body that others have profited from and exploited since childhood.

By displaying it to everyone else?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is posting yourself nude considered empowering? I will never ever understand that

Me either.

Because she's reclaiming her body that others have profited from and exploited since childhood.

Anonymous wrote:Why is posting yourself nude considered empowering? I will never ever understand that

Me either.

Why is posting yourself nude considered empowering? I will never ever understand that

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What does the article say? I don't have a subscription.

Aww man. I can't break into that nyt article either. Even incognito tab is failing me *cry*

Someone nice should copy/paste.

You can see the article at https://archive.fo/7HNGL

The fans don't care. Everyone supports her. The whole world. She can do whatever she wants just not hurt herself.

Anonymous wrote:Free woman energy has never felt better

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-10376899/Britney-Spears-post-FRONTAL-naked-snap-Instagram.htm

Is there really no one to help this woman?

Her poor kids.

Free woman energy has never felt better

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-10376899/Britney-Spears-post-FRONTAL-naked-snap-Instagram.htm

Is there really no one to help this woman?

I dunno man. She is not well. Looking at her Instagram feels inappropriate- like watching a train wreck in slow motion.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What does the article say? I don't have a subscription.

Aww man. I can't break into that nyt article either. Even incognito tab is failing me *cry*

Someone nice should copy/paste.

It's a weird article that says nothing, really.

I gather that Sam and Britney might be intellectual equals.

Of course you think that because the media has portrayed Britney as a crazy, unstable train wreck. Now, the NYT wants to define Sam and Weaver went low. It creates a story. The media has consistently portrayed her dad as determined, tired, and the only one who cared Britney's best interests. Except he didn't. What makes anyone think that this reporting is based on any sort of reality? It's all about a narrative and the men/fathers at the perceived "top" are the winners.