WHY NOT?

November 19, 2003

Comments

MSNBC asks the musical question, Will Britney bare all for big bucks? [She hasn’t already? -ed.]

Will Britney Spears bare all for Playboy? The mag is offering the curvy pop star a seven-figure fee to pose in the buff, says a source.

“PLAYBOY IS DESPERATE to get her,” says the insider. “She’s this generation’s sex symbol.”

And, argues the source, she’s already done provocative poses for Esquire and Rolling Stone, “so why not the original girlie mag?”

6 responses to “WHY NOT?”

Chris

November 19, 2003 at 9:52 pm

There is a sports radio station in Dallas called The Ticket (http://www.theticket.com). Last year about this time, one of the afternoon drive time host said that within 2 years, Britney will have posed for Playboy. Nobody agreed with him.
Little Miss Attila

November 20, 2003 at 6:29 am

“Curvy”? Britney?
McGehee

November 20, 2003 at 2:32 pm

I wasn’t around at the time, but wasn’t Esquire the “original” girlie mag? As in, before Playboy?
James Joyner

November 20, 2003 at 2:33 pm

LMA: She looks pretty curvy to me! She’s thin and fit, but still looks like a woman.

Kev: That thought occured to me as well. Not sure if Esquire was the first, but Playboy almost certainly wasn’t.
Little Miss Attila

November 21, 2003 at 2:55 am

James: I guess I associate the word “curvy” with the 1930s-style bod: buxom, with a little bit more belly than is fashionable these days. I certainly wasn’t casting aspersions on Britney’s femininity.

I’m not sure what the first skin mag was, but there was a publication called Playgirl (not the latter-day version, with naked men) that pre-dates Playboy. Same concept, though: pretty women, no clothes.