Nude Britney to Champion PETA
December 12, 2001 3:12 PM Subscribe
Nude Britney to Champion PETA - Will Britney bare it all for animal rights? Are CNN and the Post spreading rumors?
Even if she did do it, I highly doubt she'd actually be nude. Really, it'd be nothing any more risque than stuff she's worn on stage.
posted by tomorama at 3:18 PM on December 12, 2001
posted by tomorama at 3:18 PM on December 12, 2001
I've always said she could make some soft-core (or even just a playboy video spread), sell it at $50 a copy, and have it easily be the best selling porn video of all time. If she was smart about the rights, she could make $25 a copy- and at that point she'd literally be talking about billions in sales worldwide. She'd never have to work a day (clothed or unclothed) again in her life.
posted by louie at 3:23 PM on December 12, 2001
posted by louie at 3:23 PM on December 12, 2001
And! This means she's decided to associate herself with PETA. I don't think being associated with PETA is a good thing, for anybody.
posted by tomorama at 3:27 PM on December 12, 2001
posted by tomorama at 3:27 PM on December 12, 2001
wait, there's a ton of nude, even hardore pics of britney on the web. You mean they're FAKE???
*sobs*
*sobs*
posted by signal at 3:29 PM on December 12, 2001
*sobs*
c:\deltree /y pr0n\pop_T_n_A/britney*sobs*
posted by signal at 3:29 PM on December 12, 2001
Of course she will. Of course there will be strategically placed bunnies and capybaras to cover all the bits creepy old guys have been jonesing to see for so long.
posted by Kafkaesque at 3:29 PM on December 12, 2001
posted by Kafkaesque at 3:29 PM on December 12, 2001
Well, joining up with PETA would prove - once and for all - that she's as vacuous and idiotic as I've always suspected...
posted by hadashi at 3:38 PM on December 12, 2001
posted by hadashi at 3:38 PM on December 12, 2001
Brittney? nekkid?
Yeah, I guess I might be interested in that. But more than that, I'm waiting for the Olsen Twins to fall from glory, and do the Penthouse spread.
Shit, I'm going straight to hell.
posted by bradth27 at 3:42 PM on December 12, 2001
Yeah, I guess I might be interested in that. But more than that, I'm waiting for the Olsen Twins to fall from glory, and do the Penthouse spread.
Shit, I'm going straight to hell.
posted by bradth27 at 3:42 PM on December 12, 2001
I just don't get the Olsen Twins thing. They were a lot cuter at 5 or 6, and roughly as sexually attractive as they are now (i.e., not at all.)
posted by louie at 3:45 PM on December 12, 2001
posted by louie at 3:45 PM on December 12, 2001
louie: She'd never have to work a day (clothed or unclothed) again in her life.
Uh, louie- while I highly doubt the video would net billions in sales (20 million copies, an unheard of sum, at $50 each is 1 billion in gross earnings), more to the point she already never has to work a day again in her life. Acc. to Forbes, she made $38.5 million dollars last year alone, in addition to whatever she made in years before and will make in years to come. While the Britney meteor isn't going to last forever, it doesn't have to- only an idiot (read: MC Hammer) could blow that kind of scratch.
An aside: looking at that list, it's just mind-boggling how much money some of these people earn. Take Bruce Willis netting $70M last year- and that's hardly the first time he's been a big-time money earner, since he made $54M the year before. No surprise, as Forbes puts it:
posted by hincandenza at 4:10 PM on December 12, 2001
Uh, louie- while I highly doubt the video would net billions in sales (20 million copies, an unheard of sum, at $50 each is 1 billion in gross earnings), more to the point she already never has to work a day again in her life. Acc. to Forbes, she made $38.5 million dollars last year alone, in addition to whatever she made in years before and will make in years to come. While the Britney meteor isn't going to last forever, it doesn't have to- only an idiot (read: MC Hammer) could blow that kind of scratch.
An aside: looking at that list, it's just mind-boggling how much money some of these people earn. Take Bruce Willis netting $70M last year- and that's hardly the first time he's been a big-time money earner, since he made $54M the year before. No surprise, as Forbes puts it:
His biggest fans? Disney accountants The last two films he's made for the Mouse Factory have grossed more than $900 MILLION, and he's starring in at least two more.
These top dogs, over the course of their careers, will earn well into the 9 digits even after taxes. And what the hell is up with a no-talent, unfunny hack like Martin freakin' Lawrence (of "Black Knight" infamy) netting $33M last year!? Geez, no wonder these people have to develop hobbies such as swapping Lear jets with each other like they were baseball cards. How on earth do you get paid in money like that- is it wire transfers to Swiss accounts or a bank in the Cayman islands, amortized payments over time, or do they actually cut you a single check for $20M for your last picture? And is it one of those oversized checks, like Sweepstakes winners get? Enquiring minds want to know...
posted by hincandenza at 4:10 PM on December 12, 2001
britney is nast... add ten pounds to her and she becomes an instant brem-a-lowe...
boo to micky mouse club rejects
posted by vincentmeanie at 4:17 PM on December 12, 2001
boo to micky mouse club rejects
posted by vincentmeanie at 4:17 PM on December 12, 2001
I would imagine that movie stars are actually paid with wire transfers.
posted by kindall at 4:18 PM on December 12, 2001
posted by kindall at 4:18 PM on December 12, 2001
She's ugly enough with her clothes on. Does she really have to take them off?
posted by Ptrin at 4:31 PM on December 12, 2001
posted by Ptrin at 4:31 PM on December 12, 2001
Shakira......donde Shakira?
posted by hellinskira at 4:35 PM on December 12, 2001
posted by hellinskira at 4:35 PM on December 12, 2001
Sexistly speaking, the great thing about the nude poster is that we get to see her without having to hear her sing. The constant presence of her horrible, shrieking voice on the airwaves sans the presence of her better-than-decent body just points to one of the inherent tragedies of the radio medium.
Also, submitted for your approval, this.
posted by Hildago at 4:40 PM on December 12, 2001
Also, submitted for your approval, this.
posted by Hildago at 4:40 PM on December 12, 2001
Britney supporting PETA?
Yet another reason to remain carnivorous. I may even mail her some Omaha Steaks and a coonskin cap just for the hell of it.
posted by jonmc at 4:45 PM on December 12, 2001
Yet another reason to remain carnivorous. I may even mail her some Omaha Steaks and a coonskin cap just for the hell of it.
posted by jonmc at 4:45 PM on December 12, 2001
At my universities boarding house there are funny guys who would hold a dripping steak in their hands and swing their head around taking bites and ripping and tearing the thing to bits. This happened on three seperate occasions.
posted by holloway at 5:05 PM on December 12, 2001
posted by holloway at 5:05 PM on December 12, 2001
Kafkaesque, you're just saying that because people have been making fun of you for wearing that capybara costume.
posted by mattpfeff at 5:40 PM on December 12, 2001
posted by mattpfeff at 5:40 PM on December 12, 2001
Posing nude and actually SHOWING anything are two different things. I'm sure she'll be well positioned (read: nothing will be revealed).
posted by HTuttle at 5:42 PM on December 12, 2001
posted by HTuttle at 5:42 PM on December 12, 2001
Is it just me, or has PETA become little more than an excuse to show up in the newspapers naked? It seems like in the past, getting yourself nude on the cover of the Rolling Stone or Vanity Fair required an invitation from the magazine. These days it just seems to be no problem to just call up PETA and offer to do an advertising campaign.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 6:09 PM on December 12, 2001
posted by KirkJobSluder at 6:09 PM on December 12, 2001
well, it kind of brings legitimacy to all the "britney nude" searches now.
posted by lotsofno at 6:15 PM on December 12, 2001
posted by lotsofno at 6:15 PM on December 12, 2001
I believe to fully support the cause she would have to not only be nude but also properly shaven. Wouldn't want to support the "fur" lobby now would we ;-)
Going to hell, yes, but with a smile on my face.
posted by Greggbert at 6:54 PM on December 12, 2001
Going to hell, yes, but with a smile on my face.
posted by Greggbert at 6:54 PM on December 12, 2001
Sure, I like to put on a capybara costume and dance around a little bit. Who doesn't now and again? And sure, I like to drink Toilet Duck and eat those little green hamster food pellets? Who's with me?
guys? guys?
posted by Kafkaesque at 7:27 PM on December 12, 2001
guys? guys?
posted by Kafkaesque at 7:27 PM on December 12, 2001
What people have against PETA? Probably firstly their publicity campaigns (protest the Survivors eating rats, promoting beer over milk, various lapses of taste, etc. Obviously they do this simply to get attention. It works.) and secondly their ideology. Try doing a search in the archives. For people who know what PETA is and what it believes, these shock value campaigns get tired.
The pleather campaign is pretty clever, and actually makes some sense. At least it might cut down on the number of vegetarians for moral reasons who wear leather. Some of their other campaigns, such as eat the whales, aren't as smart. The reason why people are against whaling is because whales are endangered, not because they love whales in particular. (the idea was that people would be galvanized to against eating all meat in general. Not that PETA was actually for eating the whales.)
posted by Charmian at 7:46 PM on December 12, 2001
The pleather campaign is pretty clever, and actually makes some sense. At least it might cut down on the number of vegetarians for moral reasons who wear leather. Some of their other campaigns, such as eat the whales, aren't as smart. The reason why people are against whaling is because whales are endangered, not because they love whales in particular. (the idea was that people would be galvanized to against eating all meat in general. Not that PETA was actually for eating the whales.)
posted by Charmian at 7:46 PM on December 12, 2001
Well, maybe I take back the clever. It's just a retread of the PETA model antifur campaign, which used the whole naked thing again, only with the less famous. I recall PETA approached a Russian model for the campaign, and she declined, saying that she would have perished without fur in the past and it thus would be hypocritical of her to stand out against it.
posted by Charmian at 7:52 PM on December 12, 2001
posted by Charmian at 7:52 PM on December 12, 2001
PETA attempts to idolize animals, putting them on a level that's equal to (and sometimes seems greater than) humans. This is far different from having respect for nature, which is something everyone should have.
PETA often blows things out of proportion, takes things too seriously, goes too far, and sometimes is even just plain wrong.
</topic-drift>
posted by tomorama at 8:24 PM on December 12, 2001
PETA often blows things out of proportion, takes things too seriously, goes too far, and sometimes is even just plain wrong.
</topic-drift>
posted by tomorama at 8:24 PM on December 12, 2001
My favorite PETA ad. Not that I'm vegetarian, but I'm not a hypocrite (in the relevant sense) either.
posted by phoenix enflamed at 8:59 PM on December 12, 2001
posted by phoenix enflamed at 8:59 PM on December 12, 2001
You guys are missing the point. Britney Spears naked! Woo-hoo!!
posted by schlaager at 9:40 AM on December 13, 2001
posted by schlaager at 9:40 AM on December 13, 2001
Thank goodness. Britney has left so much up to the imagination until now. Finally, we will be able to see her out of those pantaloons, woolen coats and clogs and get a brief glimpse of what she really looks like under all that damned clothing.
posted by Skot at 9:47 AM on December 13, 2001
posted by Skot at 9:47 AM on December 13, 2001
Well, Britney herself has scotched the idea, and everyone involved has denied ever saying she would pose, nude or otherwise. (I'm getting this off Yahoo news.
posted by mattpfeff at 9:53 PM on December 13, 2001
posted by mattpfeff at 9:53 PM on December 13, 2001
It's really too bad about PETA. Their efforts for animal rights and veganism fall on deaf ears, mainly because of their reliance on scare tactics, easy targets (sports teams?), and their overall antagonistic tone with meat-eaters, which alienates the majority of their target audience.
They do happen to have a very adept graphic designer at their disposal, however. I only wish that they had some sense of fair play.
posted by Down10 at 11:11 PM on December 15, 2001
They do happen to have a very adept graphic designer at their disposal, however. I only wish that they had some sense of fair play.
posted by Down10 at 11:11 PM on December 15, 2001
PETA is a great organization. People react to PETA (e.g. in this forum) basically out of guilt for the way humans treat animals.
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 2:30 PM on December 17, 2001
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 2:30 PM on December 17, 2001
« Older [re]distributions | eToys is back online. Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Without the harmful treatment of animals, this type of thing wouldn't happen. I say, hurt on!
posted by Mark at 3:16 PM on December 12, 2001