Playboy Won't Pay for Britney
Filed under: Style in the News, Celebrities with Style
If her embarrassing performance at the VMAs was any sort of indication of Britney Spears' future success then I think we can all say that a star has fallen. Should you need any tangible evidence of her decline, consider her latest PR disaster.The National Ledger reports that Playboy is only willing to shell out $400,000 to have Spears pose nude for a magazine feature. Britney insists that she won't take off her clothes for less than seven figures, a sum that has been scoffed at by editor/founder/whatever Hugh Hefner.
Boffo! Can we all just agree that this is good news?
Seriously, we've seen all there is to see of Britney Spears for free. The only thing Playboy could add to that is some air-brushing and good lighting, which would be a small improvement, but not enough to make up for the fact that no one out there wants to see that woman naked. (If I'm wrong about this, please let me know.)
You know that saying about how you can't put the toothpaste back into the tube? Well, I think that pretty much sums up Britney Spears.
steve joyce 9-18-2007 @ 9:20AM
barbi benton, she is not!
Reply
Jake Geiser 9-18-2007 @ 12:35PM
Really? 400k? I would pay 20 bucks, if that.
Reply
DAVID 9-18-2007 @ 2:05PM
I MIGHT PAY $5.00 TO SEE A FAT BIMBO!!!!!
Reply
Mikerat 9-18-2007 @ 2:07PM
She should pay them...Skank
Reply
Oscar 9-18-2007 @ 2:09PM
She needs to go away for at least five years, clean up her body of all the smoke and alcohol, work out, become a real mother to her kids, write good songs appropriate to what’s going on in her life. She is no longer the sexy princess and needs to grow up. Maybe then, she will be able to regain the some self respect and the respect for others.
Reply
sheldon 9-18-2007 @ 2:09PM
If I want to see trash, I can look in a garbage can!
Reply
rock 9-18-2007 @ 2:12PM
like she needs the money. maybe they misunderstood...she should pay them to take her pictures!
Reply
joe seivers 9-18-2007 @ 2:13PM
I have some leftover Escudos from the Pinochet era that I would give her.
Reply
Pam 9-18-2007 @ 2:14PM
Hey David, She is NOT fat. Granted she doesn't look like she did even 2 yrs ago, but beings she had 2 kids, I think she looks ok.
As for her being a bimbo. Do you know her personally? Do you know how many people sheha slept with? The answer: NOOO.
People just need to focus on their own lives and if you don't like Britney, DON'T read or comment asbout her.
Reply
Mina 9-18-2007 @ 2:14PM
She is a done deal. She is not work any money. When are they going to take her kids away from her. She doesn't deserve them
Reply
Mikerat 9-18-2007 @ 2:15PM
Skank needs to avoid cameras at all costs...
Reply
me-oh-my!!(that\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s Clutch) 9-18-2007 @ 2:15PM
Come on. She's beautiful(as are all women: thank you ladies)! Plus she's rich. She's not fat by any meens. Look around you. Look in the mirror. Her body's still bangin'!
Reply
jdaley 9-18-2007 @ 2:16PM
you're wrong
Reply
me-oh-my!!(that\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ 9-18-2007 @ 2:16PM
I'd still do her! And you would too.
Reply
rala98 9-18-2007 @ 2:18PM
a little harsh no
Reply
Trey Pound 9-18-2007 @ 2:18PM
I predicted months ago that BritBrit would do a nude spread. Furthermore, I'm standing by my prediction that within two years, she's working a greased pole at some nasty "gentleman's club" on the outskirts of Vegas... just wait and see, and remember: Trey Pound called it.
-tpound-
Reply
Mikerat 9-18-2007 @ 2:19PM
Skank needs to avoid cameras at all costs....
Reply
thenewfazz 9-18-2007 @ 2:20PM
Britney is nothing but trailer park trash, that happens to have alot of money. You would have to pay me to look at her.Why would Playboy lower their standards and show us a girl at is also ugly on the inside?
Reply
matty cakes 9-18-2007 @ 2:21PM
am i the only one left that thnks shes hot?
Reply
DAVID 9-18-2007 @ 2:21PM
CAN'T IMAGINE WHAT IT WOULD FEEL LIKE TO LEAVE THE HOUSE WITHOUT ANY UNDERWEAR ON.ESPCIALLY IF I WAS IN A CAR ACCIDENT AND WAS CARRIED TO THE HOSPITAL!!!!!!!
Reply