Fact: the whole world has seen Lindsay Lohan’s clodge, flaff, wazoo, spaceballs, flimbox, fudge-glands and arse at one point or another.
It’s just what Lindsay Lohan does. It’s part of the Lindsay Lohan holy trinity – rubbish films, substance abuse and epic, near-relentless nudity. We’ve got so used to seeing Lindsay Lohan naked over the last few years that we’ve become desensitised to it, just like we have with violence and women that we’ve somehow made cry.
And that’s why it’s so surprising to hear that Lindsay Lohan has turned down an offer of $700,000 to get naked for Playboy. Silly Playboy – if you want to see Lindsay Lohan in the nude, you don’t just ask her to get naked for you – you ask her to get naked for you because you’ll let her wear a Marilyn Monroe wig if she does. That’s just how it works.
Tell you what, this whole Lindsay Lohan Year Of Sex thing’s gone a bit skew-whiff, hasn’t it? It started off well enough, what with Lindsay shagging all the men in Europe and allegedly being photographed doing a blowjob on a bloke, but she’s lost a lot of ground by dragging her heels on the whole lesbian thing for so long. Come on Lindsay, it’s September now – you should have moved onto gender unspecific midgets six weeks ago! How are you ever going to hit that Christmas bestiality deadline at this rate?
Honestly, it’s like Lindsay Lohan’s not even trying any more. She’s even turned down an abnormally large sum of money to go naked for a big anniversary issue of Playboy, which hardly seems right at all. Fox News reports:
Lindsay Lohan has turned down a $700,000 offer to do an eight-page topless spread in Playboy’s 55th-anniversary issue in January, the New York Page Six gossip column reports. “If there’s nudity, then the answer’s no … She’s not going down the magazine road again.”
Yeah, because it’d be absolutely unthinkable for Lindsay Lohan to get naked in print, wouldn’t it.
What Lindsay Lohan doesn’t seem to realise is that, having been naked in a magazine before, she’s got absolutely nothing to lose by getting her kit off for Playboy. If people want to know what any part of her body looks like in the buff, they only need to jump onto the internet and it’s all there. Getting naked in Playboy should be the poor girl’s comfort zone by now.
And the shoots sound pretty much identical anyway – for New York magazine, Lindsay Lohan got naked to mimic and celebrate Marilyn Monroe, one of her big heroes. And Playboy are asking her to get naked to mimic and celebrate Ann-Margret, another hero, so Lindsay’s even got the option to pretend it was artistic rather than admit it’s just for old men to rub one out over.
In fact, the only difference we can see between Lindsay Lohan’s New York magazine photoshoot and Lindsay Lohan’s proposed Playboy shoot is her fee. Playboy want to pay Lindsay $700,000 to take her clothes off, while New York magazine let her do it for free.
Actually, in that sense Lindsay’s Playboy refusal makes a certain amount of logic. If an exchange of money preceded her nakedness, then that would effectively make her a prostitute, which Lindsay Lohan most certainly is not.
Whereas by doing it for free, Lindsay was, at best, a massive bloody slag. And that’s hardly news, is it?
michael says
The Playboy thing has been done to death — and generally done poorly, with bland, lookalike photography (see Charisma Carpenter, Jaime Bergman, and a million others). It barely makes for a career blip anymore.
I’ll be impressed with the first starlet to do Hustler. Not THAT would be stepping outside the box, so to speak.
Shooty* says
Less of the “old”, please, Heritage.