Comments on: Britney – Naked Mommy

By: Susan

Susan — Sat, 14 Feb 2009 07:16:48 +0000

That pissed me off when I first heard about that.
I may have some complaints about Britney, but her being nude in front of her 1 and 2 year old children sure as heck ain’t one of them.

Seriously! First of all, what mother hasn’t showered or taken a bath with her young children? And second of all, they were only 1 and 2 years old at the time.

She’s a female like myself, but my daughter used to hop in the shower with me every once in a while until she turned 11 years old, and even now that she’s 15 she sometimes comes into the bathroom to tell me something while I’m showering or drying off after a shower. She’s my child, and the way I see it if I were to try to hide my naked body from her that would be making it seem like there’s something shameful about the human body. I admire all of the old ladies at the Y that walk around the locker room in the nude. There’s NOTHING REMOTELY SEXUAL about it when they do it, and in my opinion their a good example to all of the ladies and girls in the locker room.

By: Tracee

Tracee — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 14:36:27 +0000

The reference is to The Madonna – not the rockstar, but the virgin Mary – mother of Jesus.

Whom Madonna, the rockstar, was actually named after because her mother was extremely Catholic.

The Whore-Madonna syndrome is how women are percieved as either a whore OR a virgin and there is no middle ground. The problem with that is that there was only 1 mother who could be a virgin. So it’s in reference to a standard that is impossible for real women to reach. Virginal and without sex AND maternal. You can’t be one and the other in real life.

See we can’t be without sex to achieve motherhood, which we’re told is our function. But they call us whores if we do it.

We’re told both by society – be a whore and attract men to procreate. Then I can’t believe you had sex – you’re a mother!

That Madonna was a provocative rock star is only modern-day irony. And she did not actually have sex with dogs. She posed nude next to dogs. Thats an important distinction.

By: Sheryl

Sheryl — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 05:44:22 +0000

Everyone knows Britney needs to get her act together but people really need to stop knocking her every move. This b.s naked infront of her kids stuff is ridiculous not even worth the time in court and should be dismissed.
I disagree with the articles qoute, ” It’s not just Britney, all women walk the whore-madonna line in one way or another.” >>>> Yeah right! Madonna had sex with animals on video…And now she’s miss wonderful infront of the world adopting children from Africa. Whatever!
Britneys not so bad when I think of all the nasty things Madonna did.

By: Tracee

Tracee — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 23:34:25 +0000

Even the Hollywood men agree with Violet – Justin Timberlake brought up in an interview that even though HE was the one who tore her wardrobe off SHE, Janet Jackson, took 95% of the crap for it.

It’s also greatly women who are doing all the talking about it. The men are following our lead.

The mean girl got let out of high school.

By: Sonja

Sonja — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 22:54:25 +0000

I agree with Violet about the Hollywood men. It is almost all women who are being picked on. I don’t believe there are any male equivalents to Britney, Paris, or Lindsay in the media frenzy.

By: Violet

Violet — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 19:00:37 +0000

There’s bound to be some exaggeration with a whole industry dependent on Britney screwing up to sell magazines and ad space. Lots of people meet friends for drinks, or go out after their kids are in bed. Plus, weren’t you ever young?

Funny, I never hear about hollywood men who leave the kids home for a night on the town. Kevin Federline is out partying all the time and no one seems to care.

By: Tracee

Tracee — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 12:47:23 +0000

Where are the kids when she’s out – well I assume they are with a nanny. Surely you don’t think Britney is doing the diapering and feeding and the waking in the night? Surely there is one or two nannies on the scene to take care of the kids.

Parents go out and party. We do not die or become different people when we become parents. It’s not a crime to go out and party if you’re over 21 and don’t drive. We don’t want to criminalize that. The kids aren’t at the club, they are with a nanny.

Lots of parents find the transition difficult. She just went through a divorce. Lots of people have breakdowns or start to party when they divorce.

A lot of the stuff I’m hearing is people criminalizing non-criminal behavior. It’s not a crime to put soda in a bottle. It’s not a crime to go party if you got a sitter. It’s not a crime to smoke around children, especially outdoors. It’s not a crime to dance around like a stripper. It’s not a crime to take prescription medication. It’s not a crime to drink alcohol. There is no evidence, that we can see, that illegal drugs are involved.

I know tons of parents who do these things on occassion. I do these things on occassion.

Will you win parent of the year? No. But her children are very, very young. They are more likely to be scarred by being spied on and photographed 24/7 by the paparrazzi than because mommy went out and partied.

If you want to go out and party – get a babysitter and do it responsibly by taking a cab home. That’s allowed, parents, even really really good ones do that.

By: Marsha Make-Over

Marsha Make-Over — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 11:00:51 +0000

[...] don’t matter or clothes don’t matter flies in the face of the evidence. Look at Britney, Marsha Clark, Star Jones the focus is on how they [...]

By: nat from uk

nat from uk — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 08:11:50 +0000

He isnt a photographer, he’s her previously employed bodyguard..employed by her…BRITNEY’s bodyguard. He’s been summoned to court to provide evidence to what he’s witnessed whilst being her “body guard” & the best thing about it is is the fact that the judge read out a statement of what Britneys had witnessed and neither her or her lawyers contested about it. Anyhow, back to the subject. I appreciate that lots of mommys & daddys get naked infront of their kids ( i do myself ) but what im saying is the ‘nakedness’ he has probably witnessed was more like the nakedness when you’re drunk or high whilst with the kids.
So the issue there is with her being drunk and high whilst holding custody of her children, therefore leaving those kids at risk, and surely its about the kids. Also id like to add about all the pics we see of her clubbing then, where are those children then? i bet other young mums wish they could go out as much as her, i know i sure do.

But anyway, what iv been trying to say is that i dont agree with the comment in your blog suggesting that the kids are being taken away purely down to her getting naked infront of them, i mean come on, im sure the judge would have thrown that witness out straightaway if that was all the ”incriminating evidence” he had & the judge is a woman herself.

I dont agree with “Oh Please. They’re going to take Britney’s kid away from her from walking around in front of the kids naked?” because i dont think that they’re gonna take her kids away just cause she got naked (no court would do that). Its down to hard partying, drinking, drugs & wild parties whilst the kids are around.

I know if my kids were being brought up around that (say, by my partnet) id go to heaven and earth to get them out of that situation.

By: Tracee

Tracee — Thu, 20 Sep 2007 18:37:35 +0000

but what if she was partying, taking drugs and then got naked?
* still not morally wrong to be naked.
“What if the bodyguard is a just a pervy peeping tom?” if this was true im sure he would have been arrested by now as his information is being examined in court.
* You mean like all those photographers with telephoto lenses taking pictures of her on her own private property? You mean like those guys (ie: pervy peeping toms) are arrested?