by fans, for fans.
https://www.aguilera.red/
I whole heartedly agree with the both of you. I just would’ve worded it differently. She should’ve said something along the lines of, “If I want to have children, I wouldn’t be able to because I am being forced to keep this IUD in my body against my will” or something like that.jorge. wrote: ↑Thu Jun 24, 2021 10:18 amSeriously. The fact she's being forced to use an IUD and she won't be allowed to take it out? Come on. She has zero autonomy over her body or her decisions at the moment.Tink. wrote: ↑Thu Jun 24, 2021 9:54 amNo she absolutely should not have. This is forced sterilization. As a Woman, I am completely disgusted and shocked that this is allowed.SanelyInsane wrote: ↑Thu Jun 24, 2021 4:46 am She should’ve left out the wanting to have more kids part. Just saying….
Whatever her next move is, I hope she still seeks some help. Let her find a doctor she's comfortable with and continue therapy, because never even mind what happened back then, all this is enough to mess you up. I wish her peace & healing.
Yes, exactly. The way they intertwined her career with the conservatorship and used it to benefit them is an unprecedented move. I don’t think the courts have ever seen anything like this and there’s no way this can be legal. A conservatorship is supposed to safe guard your assets, not make you work your ass off against your will and emotionally drain you so it can pay out itself. This entire set up was a conflict of interest and Britney needs to sue the state of California for emotional distress and negligence. Let’s not forget the real reason Britney ended up in this predicament is because she needed help. And they did not help her. They made it even worse.Jimmyboy wrote: ↑Thu Jun 24, 2021 12:06 pmHolding someone hostage, taking away all means of communication and dictating what happens with her body (Not allowed to get pregnant) is not what a conservatorship should be about.BaeTine wrote: ↑Thu Jun 24, 2021 11:01 am I haven't listened to the audio yet, but can we just acknowledge that someone who is genuinely mentally ill and genuinely needs to be subject to a conservatorship would also say all these things?
I mean, no doubt her situation is sad, but lbr, it's going to be sad regardless. The judge has to figure out what will happen if the conservatorship is dissolved. If she really does need that sort of help and the judge terminates it, there's a good chance she'll just wind up dead, which nobody wants.
I don't know the details -- none of us does -- but I just don't think an emotional explanation from an emotionally unstable person is necessarily reliable.
If the Judge deems she needs to have someone overlooking her, it needs to be NOT her Dad and be extremely detailed in its scoop, so the person they are supposedly trying tk help, is not taken advantaged of.
Sis, if they didn't intervene, don't you think she would have committed suicide or overdosed or driven herself off a cliff by accident or something? I just don't get why everybody is so certain about what's really happening behind the scenes.Agugaga wrote: ↑Thu Jun 24, 2021 3:10 pmYes, exactly. The way they intertwined her career with the conservatorship and used it to benefit them is an unprecedented move. I don’t think the courts have ever seen anything like this and there’s no way this can be legal. A conservatorship is supposed to safe guard your assets, not make you work your ass off against your will so it can pay out itself. This entire set up was a conflict of interest and Britney needs to sue the state of California for emotional distress and negligence. Let’s not forget the real reason Britney ended up in this predicament is because she needed help. And they did not help her. They made it even worse.Jimmyboy wrote: ↑Thu Jun 24, 2021 12:06 pmHolding someone hostage, taking away all means of communication and dictating what happens with her body (Not allowed to get pregnant) is not what a conservatorship should be about.BaeTine wrote: ↑Thu Jun 24, 2021 11:01 am I haven't listened to the audio yet, but can we just acknowledge that someone who is genuinely mentally ill and genuinely needs to be subject to a conservatorship would also say all these things?
I mean, no doubt her situation is sad, but lbr, it's going to be sad regardless. The judge has to figure out what will happen if the conservatorship is dissolved. If she really does need that sort of help and the judge terminates it, there's a good chance she'll just wind up dead, which nobody wants.
I don't know the details -- none of us does -- but I just don't think an emotional explanation from an emotionally unstable person is necessarily reliable.
If the Judge deems she needs to have someone overlooking her, it needs to be NOT her Dad and be extremely detailed in its scoop, so the person they are supposedly trying tk help, is not taken advantaged of.
There were better ways to handle her emotional breakdown in 2008 and that isn’t taking control of everything she worked hard for. The fact that they pushed her out in the public eye with a new album just 9 months into the conservatorship should’ve been a huge red flag. What she needed to do was go on a long break, seek therapy and stay out the public eye to repair the emotional trauma she underwent. Throwing her back under the public eye and putting on a facade that all was well while they controlled everything was more damaging to her in the long run. She had enough money at that point to get years of top notch private care and she could’ve been in a far better place. It was clear from the beginning the conservatorship’s top concern wasn’t Britney, but how much money they could make out of her now that they had her hands tied.BaeTine wrote: ↑Thu Jun 24, 2021 3:14 pmSis, if they didn't intervene, don't you think she would have committed suicide or overdosed or driven herself off a cliff by accident or something? I just don't get why everybody is so certain about what's really happening behind the scenes.Agugaga wrote: ↑Thu Jun 24, 2021 3:10 pmYes, exactly. The way they intertwined her career with the conservatorship and used it to benefit them is an unprecedented move. I don’t think the courts have ever seen anything like this and there’s no way this can be legal. A conservatorship is supposed to safe guard your assets, not make you work your ass off against your will so it can pay out itself. This entire set up was a conflict of interest and Britney needs to sue the state of California for emotional distress and negligence. Let’s not forget the real reason Britney ended up in this predicament is because she needed help. And they did not help her. They made it even worse.Jimmyboy wrote: ↑Thu Jun 24, 2021 12:06 pm
Holding someone hostage, taking away all means of communication and dictating what happens with her body (Not allowed to get pregnant) is not what a conservatorship should be about.
If the Judge deems she needs to have someone overlooking her, it needs to be NOT her Dad and be extremely detailed in its scoop, so the person they are supposedly trying tk help, is not taken advantaged of.
Yeah, I see that perspective, but I also see that stopping her from working after she had been busy since she was like 5 yo could have been very disruptive and disturbing to her.Agugaga wrote: ↑Thu Jun 24, 2021 3:17 pmThere were better ways to handle her emotional breakdown in 2008 and that isn’t taking control of everything she worked hard for. The fact that they pushed her out in the public eye with a new album just 9 months into the conservatorship should’ve been a huge red flag. What she needed to do was go on a long break, seek therapy and stay out the public eye to repair the emotional trauma she underwent. Throwing her back under the public eye and putting on a facade that all was well while they controlled everything was more damaging to her in the long run. She had enough money at that point to get years of top notch private care and she could’ve been in a far better place. It was clear from the beginning the conservatorship’s top concern wasn’t Britney, but how much money they could make out of her now that they had her hands tied.BaeTine wrote: ↑Thu Jun 24, 2021 3:14 pmSis, if they didn't intervene, don't you think she would have committed suicide or overdosed or driven herself off a cliff by accident or something? I just don't get why everybody is so certain about what's really happening behind the scenes.Agugaga wrote: ↑Thu Jun 24, 2021 3:10 pm
Yes, exactly. The way they intertwined her career with the conservatorship and used it to benefit them is an unprecedented move. I don’t think the courts have ever seen anything like this and there’s no way this can be legal. A conservatorship is supposed to safe guard your assets, not make you work your ass off against your will so it can pay out itself. This entire set up was a conflict of interest and Britney needs to sue the state of California for emotional distress and negligence. Let’s not forget the real reason Britney ended up in this predicament is because she needed help. And they did not help her. They made it even worse.
I understand where you are coming from, and this figure of protection was definitely needed when she had her breakdown, and it might still be so, nobody is denying this.BaeTine wrote: ↑Thu Jun 24, 2021 3:30 pmYeah, I see that perspective, but I also see that stopping her from working after she had been busy since she was like 5 yo could have been very disruptive and disturbing to her.Agugaga wrote: ↑Thu Jun 24, 2021 3:17 pmThere were better ways to handle her emotional breakdown in 2008 and that isn’t taking control of everything she worked hard for. The fact that they pushed her out in the public eye with a new album just 9 months into the conservatorship should’ve been a huge red flag. What she needed to do was go on a long break, seek therapy and stay out the public eye to repair the emotional trauma she underwent. Throwing her back under the public eye and putting on a facade that all was well while they controlled everything was more damaging to her in the long run. She had enough money at that point to get years of top notch private care and she could’ve been in a far better place. It was clear from the beginning the conservatorship’s top concern wasn’t Britney, but how much money they could make out of her now that they had her hands tied.
Again, I'm not saying that I know anything about the situation, but what I do know is that this thing has been approved and reviewed multiple times over the years, and I assume the judge and appointed attorneys and everybody else do this for a lot of people besides her.
Maybe it's all corrupt, maybe the judge is getting a cut, maybe she really is enslaved within her own home. But maybe her dad and the others involved have shown evidence that convinced the judge she needed this specific setup.
She's a sad case. And I actually still think she's going to wind up dead way younger than she otherwise might have. But I also think it's sort of a miracle that she didn't die already. Maybe those of y'all who follow her know a lot more details than I think you do, but to me, without seeing the prior pleadings and evidence (which I assume is sealed?), I don't think there is enough information for a layperson to judge.
Like I said, sis, I see why people are having this reaction to the testimony. It was sad to hear. I just don't know that any of it was reliable. To me, if someone is genuinely mentally impaired, they are open to manipulation as well as to delusion. Either could have been at play today. But that doesn't mean either of us has to change our mind. This is just how I took it.Jimmyboy wrote: ↑Thu Jun 24, 2021 3:44 pmI understand where you are coming from, and this figure of protection was definitely needed when she had her breakdown, and it might still be so, nobody is denying this.BaeTine wrote: ↑Thu Jun 24, 2021 3:30 pmYeah, I see that perspective, but I also see that stopping her from working after she had been busy since she was like 5 yo could have been very disruptive and disturbing to her.Agugaga wrote: ↑Thu Jun 24, 2021 3:17 pm
There were better ways to handle her emotional breakdown in 2008 and that isn’t taking control of everything she worked hard for. The fact that they pushed her out in the public eye with a new album just 9 months into the conservatorship should’ve been a huge red flag. What she needed to do was go on a long break, seek therapy and stay out the public eye to repair the emotional trauma she underwent. Throwing her back under the public eye and putting on a facade that all was well while they controlled everything was more damaging to her in the long run. She had enough money at that point to get years of top notch private care and she could’ve been in a far better place. It was clear from the beginning the conservatorship’s top concern wasn’t Britney, but how much money they could make out of her now that they had her hands tied.
Again, I'm not saying that I know anything about the situation, but what I do know is that this thing has been approved and reviewed multiple times over the years, and I assume the judge and appointed attorneys and everybody else do this for a lot of people besides her.
Maybe it's all corrupt, maybe the judge is getting a cut, maybe she really is enslaved within her own home. But maybe her dad and the others involved have shown evidence that convinced the judge she needed this specific setup.
She's a sad case. And I actually still think she's going to wind up dead way younger than she otherwise might have. But I also think it's sort of a miracle that she didn't die already. Maybe those of y'all who follow her know a lot more details than I think you do, but to me, without seeing the prior pleadings and evidence (which I assume is sealed?), I don't think there is enough information for a layperson to judge.
But even a layperson can tell, without looking at any legal papers and based on a swore-in testimony by the victim, that controlling whether she can get pregnant or not and putting her to work instead is a similar figure to slavery, moreso than to a conservatorship.
All of this!Anitta wrote: ↑Thu Jun 24, 2021 11:53 am Oh stop it.
If anything, the constant comparisons were a detriment to her career not a boost.
She doesn't need to say anything. She'll be vilified if she does (the britbos saying she's always trying to ride on her coattails) and if she doesn't (people like you saying she owes Britney anything).
I would prefer if she didn't mention it at all. Did Xtina even receive Britney's support after Bionicgate? Nope.
Is X not asked about Binty enough in your opinion?xtinafighter48 wrote: ↑Thu Jun 24, 2021 11:09 am i think that is her business
without that rivalry with Britney, xtina's career would have been very different, perhaps not so mediatic, an apparent rivalry that was monetized and capitalized, in each interview, in each promo, from the beginning until 2018
They are strongly linked in the music industry, her message would be extremely powerful is needed
Interested to hear more from Nuthin about women tbh.
I don’t think anyone is arguing that she is mentally ok or that she doesn’t need professional help.Cruz808 wrote: ↑Thu Jun 24, 2021 4:45 pm I understand people want to free Britney but just because she’s seemingly well enough to speak against her current conservatorship doesn’t mean she’s been cured of all her mental struggles. Someone else should be in charge to help see her through a road to mental and physical recovery.
What upsets me the most is not the birth control thing because let’s be real, some people shouldn’t be allowed to care for another life if they aren’t mentally well where they could be a danger to the baby, but the fact that they kept her prisoner with medication. I can’t think of much worse than being a prisoner in your own body with no one to turn to, no one to trust. Now, thanks to these greedy fools, she has new traumas to recover from.
I get your point, however I don't see evidence of the conservatorship being good for her as of right now in 2021.
Well, to be fair, none of us is seeing evidence in favor of the conservatorship. Maybe that's for a nefarious reason, like it's all been fabricated. But maybe it's for a good reason, like they have proved some things about her behavior and her condition that would embarass her if they were publicly known, but which have been sufficient to convince the judge. We may never know. And maybe that's as it should be.Data wrote: ↑Thu Jun 24, 2021 5:03 pmI get your point, however I don't see evidence of the conservatorship being good for her as of right now in 2021.
Conservatorship is extremely invasive. Moreover, there's no national tracking of people under conservatorship in the U.S. This is a huge issue, because it means no one knows how much abuse occurs under conservatorship. I mean if that's not a red flag about the systemic problems in it, I don't know what is.
There are, other legal options that are less restrictive and more humane. Jessica is severely disabled with multiple illnesses and conditions affecting her physical and mental abilities, yet she's not under conservatorship.
Power of attorney could be another option? Or supported decision-making?
True. But if there's actual grounds for it, her working a residency/touring and performing on TV shouldn't happen, IMO.BaeTine wrote: ↑Thu Jun 24, 2021 5:13 pm Well, to be fair, none of us is seeing evidence in favor of the conservatorship. Maybe that's for a nefarious reason, like it's all been fabricated. But maybe it's for a good reason, like they have proved some things about her behavior and her condition that would embarass her if they were publicly known, but which have been sufficient to convince the judge. We may never know. And maybe that's as it should be.
I think it's cute that Justin is supporting her but he could've removed this part: "Regardless of our past, good and bad, and no matter how long ago it was… " bitch get over it! This is not about your failed relationship or how you got your ass played 20 years ago...
Yeah, I agree that it looks so sketch, but even about her continuing to work, we just don't know the back story. Maybe she has a permanent condition and will never recover. Maybe they decided she needed some semblance of "normalcy," and for her that meant continuing to perform. But you're right, maybe it was just about continuing to get money out of her. That's why I was saying it's really just sad no matter which way you look at it, even with the little bit we do know.Data wrote: ↑Thu Jun 24, 2021 5:35 pmTrue. But if there's actual grounds for it, her working a residency/touring and performing on TV shouldn't happen, IMO.BaeTine wrote: ↑Thu Jun 24, 2021 5:13 pm Well, to be fair, none of us is seeing evidence in favor of the conservatorship. Maybe that's for a nefarious reason, like it's all been fabricated. But maybe it's for a good reason, like they have proved some things about her behavior and her condition that would embarass her if they were publicly known, but which have been sufficient to convince the judge. We may never know. And maybe that's as it should be.
It just points to enormous financial abuse. If she's delusional in someways and needs help then she should get it, am just not sure if again conservatorship especially under her father, is the right decision.
All good points. The judge is accountable.BaeTine wrote: ↑Thu Jun 24, 2021 5:43 pm Yeah, I agree that it looks so sketch, but even about her continuing to work, we just don't know the back story. Maybe she has a permanent condition and will never recover. Maybe they decided she needed some semblance of "normalcy," and for her that meant continuing to perform. But you're right, maybe it was just about continuing to get money out of her. That's why I was saying it's really just sad no matter which way you look at it, even with the little bit we do know.
If I'm in the judge's shoes, I am focused on literally one thing only: which decision is more likely to keep her alive? Because Mantequillah and Nuthin can tweet all they want, but if the judge terminates this thing and the boyfriend kills her drunk driving or she gets pregnant and drowns the baby or she snorts a coffee table full of cocaine and goes into cardiac arrest, the judge will be the one accountable, not any celebrity or any Floret in the Broccoley standom.
Also screeching at Nuthin, such a fittin' name! 
Data wrote: ↑Thu Jun 24, 2021 5:54 pmAll good points. The judge is accountable.BaeTine wrote: ↑Thu Jun 24, 2021 5:43 pm Yeah, I agree that it looks so sketch, but even about her continuing to work, we just don't know the back story. Maybe she has a permanent condition and will never recover. Maybe they decided she needed some semblance of "normalcy," and for her that meant continuing to perform. But you're right, maybe it was just about continuing to get money out of her. That's why I was saying it's really just sad no matter which way you look at it, even with the little bit we do know.
If I'm in the judge's shoes, I am focused on literally one thing only: which decision is more likely to keep her alive? Because Mantequillah and Nuthin can tweet all they want, but if the judge terminates this thing and the boyfriend kills her drunk driving or she gets pregnant and drowns the baby or she snorts a coffee table full of cocaine and goes into cardiac arrest, the judge will be the one accountable, not any celebrity or any Floret in the Broccoley standom.
Personally I just don't trust the conservatorship system. The video I posted above^ displayed some case examples as to why, yikes.
On a lighter messier note: sis who TF is Mantequillah?
They should have put a sponsored post tag on this. But get that instamoolah, I guess.