Will Brittney Spears Divorce Herself?

@Barefooter25 But it is kind of sad.She clearly didn't have a good upbringing and the people who were supposed to be protecting her were abusing her.I kind of feel sorry for her.

@DavidT8899 Even her sister Jamie-Lynn no longer speaks to her. The people who were supposed to help her just thought of Brittney as their bread winner without thinking of her well being.

@Barefooter25 I think that's one of the reasons someone like,for instance,Taylor Swift has been able to avoid those issues.She appears to have had a living,stable family that legitimately supported her.

@DavidT8899 Taylor Swift also managed to not have any kids and is voting for the old cat lady. That's not a sign of mental stability in a attractive, wealthy woman.

@Dignaga Given her status and position,I'm not sure that I'd agree with your point about not having kids;for her,it might actually be more responsible not to have them until she actually gets married ,whenever or if ever that happens.As far as her support of Harris,while it's certainly not a position that I agree with ,it's not a sign of literal mental instability as much as it's a sad yet obvious expectation that an A -list star will go along with the "woke"mentality that rules the entertainment world.

@DavidT8899 She is 34 or 35, and is dragging this out unnecessarily. She doesn't look bad, doesn't have a apparent disability, isn't a issue with fear of being able to financially afford to raise a kid.

Yeah, it's sign of mental instability.

@Dignaga In her case,I don't think so.I mean ,she hasn't gotten married yet,so you could make the argument that having one out of wedlock would be a lot more unstable than waiting.And let's face it:if she doesn't want them yet,would it be more responsible to wait as opposed to bringing them into the world.I mean,how many parents have kids that have no business having them?It's better to err on the side of caution!

@DavidT8899 She can't wait. It's delusional. Many women lose the ability to have kids prior to this age, it's not like men where we can knock up a woman at 90. The vast majority of women are very, very aware of this.

If I was a woman at 35, and no marriage prospects and a friend wouldn't volunteer to be the sperm donor, I'd go and get knocked up by whoever. Worst things than being a unwed mother.

It's really not funny when people try to fix you up with a woman aged 39 who just divorced her husband (red flag) and wants kids, and get married. That is stressful as it gets for the man, as a long dating period is likely to work out and THEN have kid(s). You basically gotta knock her up on the first date, if it is even possible anymore, and then get to know her.

I was more or less pushed into that situation by my god mother and other elderly women who knew a chinese woman in town who just left her husband. I found her somewhat doable in the looks department but was freaked out I would have to basically instantly commit and knock her up that instant if she was going to have a chance at mothering a child.

It's way better to do that stuff in your esrly 30s. 20s better. If I had a female friend who was 40 and just wanted sperm, I'd probably give her all she wanted as long as I wasn't going to foot the childrearing bills.

Women know to knock this out early. Ignoring it is a sign something is going wrong upstairs. Guys can draf it out into their 50s sometimes and still reproduce. Always better even for them to do it younger.

@Dignaga Well,maybe she just legitimately doesn't want to have the responsibility of a child at this time in her life.And really,what's wrong with that?

@DavidT8899 What is wrong is we do not have a sure fire way of selecting for intelligence, health or beauty right now. There is a company over in Europe that claims it can screen embyros for certain negative traits and a few supposedly advantageous ones, but it isn't Gattica yet.

Until we figure out how to make super babies, we need our super people making babies. For women, that's a combination of health, beauty, intelligence and talent.

If they do not make babies, it is only the fugly ones who don't know how to do crap making babies. We will probably not head off into the direction of Gattica with them, but rather Idiocracy.

Taylor Swift needs knocked up. If she isn't having babies, not only is she being selfish denying the human race her genes in the genepool, but she also dragged out a successful athlete who likewise will not be able to reproduce. But fat headed Meg working at the gas station part time will still manage to have 7 babies.

That is NOT FAIR to the human race.

[media=https://youtu.be/NIIZ2P-fiyI]

[media=https://youtu.be/sP2tUW0HDHA]

She needs to start getting knocked up, married or ready or not, I don't care.

@Dignaga Using your criteria,it would be just as necessary for her to copulate with a male who also has superior genetic advantages.In your opinion ,does her current boyfriend for the bill?

@DavidT8899 He is physically better than most men at the least. He is one of America's top athletes in the vigor of his youth. They attracted one another, she is about to expire, time for babies. Right now. Should be a executive order signed by the President demanding it.

@Dignaga In your opinion,who would be the IDEAL mating partner for Taylor Swift?

@Dignaga So you are of the opinion that the most desirable of women-those that have beauty , intelligence and talent-should be legally required to have children?

@DavidT8899 It was never a legal requirement, just a moral and ethical imperative.

@Dignaga I know it's not a legal requirement;but do you think it should be?I'm just curious.

@DavidT8899 I'm a Stoic, we never made it a legal requirement when were rewrote the constitutions of ancient states. We made it a moral and ethical imperative.

@Dignaga You seem to have a similar attitude toward procreation and socitial responsibility as the Ancient Greeks,expect they applied to more toward the males then the females.They frowned upon makes masturbating,as they saw it as a wasteful activity that should be redirected into actual sex for the purposes of childbearing.

@DavidT8899 Not true, Greeks prior to the romans were quite sexually active and would screw anything. It took a few centuries, near the end of the Roman Republic for a shift to take place on sexual restraint, such as the Rape of Lucretia. Arius Didymus never wrote on a anti-masturbation theme, but it seems it was his policies Emperor Augustus adopted.

I believe you are projecting other people you have negative sterotype about upon me.

I can assure you ,sir,that I harbor NO negative stereotypes about ANYONE based on their race or ethnic background.I was simply trying to understand your reasoning.

@DavidT8899 I stated my reasoning above. The current sexual mores of the left is something cobbled together by a handful of individuals with little basis in history, or in sociology. It's cracking and messing up for precisely that reason.

We've had societies ran by gays and transexuals, and they had stable atteibutes to them. The transexuals tend to fall hard (really hard), but they have had a good stable run when they do operate, but in order to pull that off you have to turn society upside down. We are only 1/3rd of the way there.

Purely feminist societies caused the most inequality in antiquity. The philosopher Sphaerus was tasked with reforming Sparta, which was completely controlled by women at that point due to generations of disenfranchised males being pushed out while women controlled and compounded their ownership of property. It got to the point Sparta couldn't field a army anymore.

Whenever a society goes on one of these leftist binges of anything goes, in the first couple generations it isn't understood what the repercussions are. Sometimes it works out- like the cuckold communities Marco Polo found isolated on the Silk Road- they couldn't maintain a large enough genepool to avoid incest, so brothers married sisters, and they figured out after a while that had negative consequences. The end result was they let traders do their women (any woman of any age) in a household and the men let this happen. It lead to good health in the community as they got refukar outside DNA and stable households. It doesn't work largescale elsewhere in communities where incest isn't the norm. That's a case of a positive, the negatives far outnumber.

The greeks themselves moved away from homosexuality and sex with minors prior to christianity. Romans started too. It took centuries of thought, and there was backsliding and holdouts. Christianity didn't invent it's sexual mores (outside of monastacism), it merely adopted it from the Roman elites. It was a very well thought out system, built upon centuries of reflection.