Lindsay Lohan won't pose topless for Playboy
There will be no more nude photos of Lindsay Lohan on the newsstands, since the unemployable starlet as allegedly turned down a $700,000 offer to pose topless in Playboy's 55th anniversary issue, coming out in January. What, does she have standards now or something?
"If there's nudity, then the answer's no ... She's not going down the (New York) magazine road again," Lohan's rep told Playboy creative consultant, Hal Lifson, the New York Post's Page Six says. You remember those photos, right? The Marilyn Monroe, uh, "tribute" spread? That didn't go over too well.
Lifson apparently wanted to do a tribute to Ann-Margret this time, drawing inspiration from her film Kitten With A Whip. Maybe it's for the best that LiLo not be involved, after all.
Make this your daily (heck, hourly) stop for a fresh serving of pop smarts and cool things from around Tampa Bay and the nation. Compiled by tbt* jack-of-all-trades Joshua Gillin and his merry band of rogue journalists, it pokes fun at ridiculous celebrity worship, collects entertainment tidbits and features fun links to amuse and amaze you and your friends.
Who wants to see this burned out, partied out, bimbo in the buff NOW? Maybe 3 years ago, but not at this point.
Posted by: Joey | September 08, 2008 at 04:07 PM
We have seen it all already.I am surprised that Playboy would want to lower their standards to have her in their magazine.With her looks she is not even worthy of her face on a bag of Purina Dog Chow.
Posted by: JM | September 06, 2008 at 07:57 PM
Would be a turn-off for me anyhow...after all, the total "package" belongs to another woman..."Sam"...double "yuck"...
Posted by: steve | September 06, 2008 at 11:47 AM
Come on, it's not like we haven't already seen your jugs
Posted by: John | September 05, 2008 at 09:38 PM
We have all seen it more than once. So whats the big deal?
Posted by: larry | September 05, 2008 at 07:44 PM