On the down side, if you forgot to cover up while the shot-puttin’ paper boy road past you risked getting very tiny cuts in very sensitive places. Oh the memories. While we’re on the topic you should know it was in a nude-theatre that we first took in that Harry Potter film.

We should probably recommend that place to Rupert Grint, him apparently being a recently converted nudist and all.

Oh you read that right.

Outside of Harry Potter Daniel Radcliffe has only been taking roles where his genitalia gets referenced at least three times in the script. This doesn’t make sense until you realise he’s most likely getting two pay checks for it. Seriously, we heard his left nut has a five bedroom house somewhere in the Alps – complete with a neutered butler, which is just so ironic.

Rich nuts forget where they’re from, you know?

Now Rupert Grint, who’s mannana has been famous every bit as long as Radcliffe’s except under several layers of clothing, is letting the sweet sun warm every single circumcised part of his body while a nearby film director shouts things at it like ‘Hey! Hey! I said stop staring at the floor! Good, now show me frightened.’

We mean Grint is getting naked in a movie.

This is true because we don’t think the Malaysia Sun would ever lie to us:

“English actor Daniel Radcliffe, who played the role of Harry Potter in the film series …shed off his clothes on stage in Equus. Now, Grint, 20, who shot to fame with his role as Ron Weasley, has shed off his clothes in the new movie. The film is about three teenagers who embark on a debauched weekend of drink, drugs, shoplifting and stealing cars.”

When asked about his first nude roll Grint simply joked about how they were gonna need a much longer camera. Bad-um-bum.

He never said that. Nobody said that.

Although the young red headed actor refuses to say exactly how much his penis will get paid for the film, Forbes would likely assure us it’s a shoe-in for 2009’s Top 50 Richest Young Hollywood Schlongs list, right behind a few penises you’ve never heard of and something oblong and sticky that’s growing on Oprah’s foot.

You! Follow hecklerspray on Twitter!

It’s obvious! Jennifer Aniston is promoting a film that’s primarily aimed at children, so it’s obvious she’d end up naked on the front of GQ magazine. Really, this is just like when Jodie Foster got her bum out to promote Nim’s Island or when the entire cast of that Narnia film guest-edited that issue of Fat Filthy Knockers magazine.

But, of course, Jennifer Aniston isn’t just naked in GQ for her film – it’s also to show everyone that she’s happy. Happy! She’s happy, OK? HAPPY!

You know what’s old hat these days? Gratuitous celebrity nudity. These days, if a famous woman decides to get naked, it has to be for an important cause. That’s why Khloe Kardashian got naked yesterday, in an effort to raise awareness of the barbaric fur trade. And it’s also why Jennifer Aniston is naked on the cover of GQ magazine this month – because, um…

OK, look, we don’t know exactly why Jennifer Aniston is naked on the cover of GQ magazine this month, but she is, and we think it’s down to one of the following:

1 - To promote her new funny animal movie Marley And Me.

2 - To show the world that she’s completely comfortable with herself, especially after hours of expensive post-shoot digital manipulation.

3 - To show that bitch Angelina Jolie who’s the sexy one. Yeah, you see that, Angelina? You see these sexy naked tits? Yeah, this is why Brad Pitt married me and then, um, ran off with… oh. Nevermind.

4 – Because Jennifer Aniston clearly doesn’t think that the 18 hours of each day that she monopolises by jumping around screaming “Woo! Look at me! I’m Jennifer Aniston! I have a complex love life I’m just dying to tell you about!” in every single publication on the planet is enough.

So, yes, the sight of Jennifer Aniston naked on the cover of GQ might reek of desperation, but at least it stops her prattling on about Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie like some sort of demented bellend. Doesn’t it?

“The funny thing is that people don’t realize we all go away to the Hamptons on the weekends.” Really? “No. But can you imagine? That’d be hysterical. I’ve got Zahara on my hip, and Knox …”

Oh. It doesn’t.

But, still, it’s worked – the naked GQ cover has got Jennifer Aniston more publicity than she knows what to do with, and we’re sure this will be reflected in Marley And Me’s opening weekend box office, where it will no doubt break records in reaching the ‘lonely single man who enjoy masturbating to pictures of naked women doing weird squirrelly things with their arms’ demographic.

But don’t forget that there’s still a fortnight before Marley And Me is released, so this probably isn’t the last we’ll see of Jennifer Aniston. But what tricks could she possibly have left in her arsenal? After all, we’ve had the fake pregnancy trick, and the slagging off Angelina Jolie trick, and the desperate plea for babies trick, and now we’re already at the naked in a magazine trick. What could possibly be next?

Well, logic dictates that that if the pattern holds there’ll be a Jennifer Aniston sex tape out in the next few days. But just you cool your heels, Aniston fans – a Jennifer Aniston sex tape wouldn’t be nearly as good as you expect, because chances are it’d also star John Mayer and, you know, people only have a finite amount of vomit they can puke up before they start retching blood.

You! Follow hecklerspray on Twitter!

Because, while Khloe Kardashian would rather go naked than wear fur, Kim Kardashian would rather go naked, set up a video camera, roll around on a bed and boff a man whose tongue looks like it’s being remotely-controlled by a man from The Henson Company than wear fur.

But still, nice try. Meanwhile, some dogs have just started an ‘I’d rather be bludgeoned to death for my fur inside an abandoned Chinese warehouse than see Khloe Kardashian’s arse again’ campaign. Unrelated, we’re sure.

The fur trade is almost as old as humanity itself – with fur first being used to provide vital warmth for man’s earliest ancestors, and then as clothing for the likes of pimps, various queens of Narnia and genuinely awful rich women. And the fur trade is still going strong, despite decades of protest by activists concerned about the awful conditions in which the animals are kept and killed.

But today is the day that the fur trade dies.

Over the years, PETA has experimented with making famous people take their clothes off for its ‘I’d rather go naked than wear fur’ campaign. But no matter who got naked – supermodels, film actresses, actresses who used to do films but don’t do much now and idiots – the fur trade carried on regardless.

But now, finally, PETA has understood exactly who needs to get naked to put an end to this barbarism – the less-famous sister of a woman who’s sole claim to marginal fame is that she had sex on the internet and her dad’s a lawyer or something. Khloe Kardashian, the animals thank you for saving their lives. People reports:

Move over, Kim Kardashian. Your famous rear end may have some competition – from your little sister. In a new anti-fur ad for PETA, Keeping Up with the Kardashians costar Khloe Kardashian disrobes and shows off her posterior. Next to the star, 24, is the tagline “Fur? I’d Rather Go Naked.”

It’s thought that Khloe Kardashian decided to go naked for PETA to try and shame her sister Kim Kardashian, who is still an avowed fur-wearer. But that’s not the only reason, of course – Khloe Kardashian also went naked for fur because it’d get her talked about and, as such, she was also prepared to take her clothes off for the following campaigns:

‘I’d rather go naked than buy ivory’.

‘I’d rather go naked than illegally traffic a prostitute in from Albania’.

‘I’d rather go naked than drop-kick a squirrel into a threshing machine’.

‘I’d rather go naked than give a dog a Chinese burn.’

‘I’d rather go naked than something to do with deforestation’.

‘I’d rather go naked than punch a cow in the jaw.’

‘I’d rather go naked than eat, frankly. Or sleep. I love getting naked, so long as it’s for a good cause. Or a bad cause. Or no cause at all. I’ll get famous if I do this, right? What if I jiggle my tits around?’

Anyway, the sight of Khloe Kardashian naked will definitely get the fur trade on the run. If they know what’s good for them they’ll stop killing animals immediately, because as soon as Khloe convinces her sister to do the same, there’ll be trouble. After all, everyone knows that Kim Kardashian’s vagina is essentially a swirling vortex that nothing can ever escape, not even light, once it’s unleashed.

You! Follow hecklerspray on Twitter!

Yes, now she’s all grown up, Emma Watson is proud woman in possession of a full set of boobs and, if we hear correctly, a properly-functioning bottom. And she’d like nothing more than to show you.

Observing Daniel Radcliffe’s critical acclaim after appearing nude in Equus, Emma Watson has decided that she’d quite like to get naked, too. But only if it’s artistic and integral to the plot. Or slapdash and gratuitous. She’s not really bothered.

The Harry Potter actors are quickly approaching a crossroads in their life – after the movie series ends in the next couple of years they can either accept that they were lucky to be part of the Harry Potter phenomenon to begin with, live off the millions they earnt from it and top up their holiday funds by appearing on The Weakest Link: Rubbish Old Bloody Hasbeens We Can Barely Even Remember Edition once every few years. Or they can become serious actors.

Daniel Radcliffe has taken the second option, embarking on a wildly successful transatlantic run as the little naked horse-stab boy in Equus. And it’s paid dividends – by doing so, Radcliffe has dismissed any notion that he’s the next Mark Hamill. At the absolute least he’s a new version of Mark Hamill who gets his cock out night after night at the behest of a terrifying half-man half-horse god figure. So take that, haters.

And now Emma Watson has decided that she wants a slice of the artistic credibility pie as well. Although she shot to fame as prim little bookworm Hermione Granger in the Harry Potter movies, Emma Watson has been experimenting with adulthood a little lately, by showing off her knickers and possibly getting off with pig-faced rockers who look like they smell of paint thinner.

The final step of this transformation is, of course, the utterly gratuitous movie nude scene.  So Emma Watson has decided that he wants to do that as well now, please. The New York Daily News reports:

The baby-faced teenager, who has garnered legions of fans for her role as innocent Hermione Granger, admitted this weekend she would go naked for her art. “Yes. For Bernardo Bertolucci. It … depends,” said the actress, referring to the Italian director. But she quickly rationalized, “I’m not getting my kit off any time soon, but it is part of my job.”

That’s right Emma, it is part of your job to get naked. After all, if young actresses didn’t blunder into onscreen nudity at an embarrassingly young age, then the internet would shrivel up and die within weeks. Emma Watson, we salute you.

But, as shocking as it sounds to her that Emma Watson from Harry Potter wants to get naked in a film, remember that it’s not as scandalous as it sounds – Emma is 18 years old now and she’s firmly stated that it won’t be happening immediately.

After all, Emma Watson has a wise head and she knows that it’ll take several years to decide if she wants to thwonk her boobies out in a tawdry straight-to-DVD erotic thriller, or if she wants to preserve her womanhood for something really special like Showgirls 2: Return Of The Minge.

So, sincere congratulations to Emma Watson for her nudity vow. We’re sure that however she decides to display her bazzers on celluloid, a small army of quite creepy middle-aged men will firmly support her all the way.

Oh, but Emma? If you being naked in a film inspires that Ron Weasley kid to do the same thing, we’re going to hunt you down and tear you apart like dogs. Dogs, you hear? OK, thanks.

You! Follow hecklerspray on Twitter!

Don’t know who Adrienne Bailon is? Don’t worry – neither do we! Just know that there are naked Adrienne Bailon photos all over the internet, and there’s supposedly a sex tape on the way too. Best of all, Adrienne Bailon is 25 years old, so you can look at her naked photos without being terrified that the police will find the images on your hard drive and get all Gary Glitter on you.

We’re sure this is hugely embarrassing time for Adrienne Bailon, and the poor girl’s probably worried that these naked photos will spell the end of her career – but there’s no reason for that to happen. Just look at Kim Kardashian – a similar thing happened to her and she managed to last three full weeks on Dancing With The Stars. That’s the big time, Adrienne!

We know this makes us sound old, but naked internet photos of female celebrities just aren’t what they were. Time was you’d be tripping over all sorts of nude photos of everyone from Vanessa Hudgens out of High School Musical to the dull one from Sex And The City to the ginger mannish one from Desperate Housewives.

But now? Now people are so uptight that they throw a tantrum if they see some of Miley Cyrus’ back. That’s hardly the reaction of a rational society, and so we all need to thank Adrienne Bailon with all our hearts for what she’s just done.

You see, naked photos of Adrienne Bailon have appeared on the internet, and they’ve created a sort of perfect naked storm. Here’s why.

Adriene Bailon is one of the stars of Disney’s Cheetah Girls – which means there’s corrupted youth, the tainted reputation of an organisation that prides itself on family appeal and something for the dads. Adrienne Bailon is 25 – which means there isn’t the moral iffyness that you get from gawping at a naked teenager. Adrienne Bailon is also dating Kim Kardashian’s brother – which means there’s an ingrained tradition of getting naked on the internet at work. And, best of all, there’s supposedly an Adrienne Bailon sex tape on the loose as well – which means that she’s definitely a bit dirty and can’t get away with the ‘this was a one-time mistake’ excuse. See? Perfect.

Now, the usual formula of reacting to this sort of thing involves a couple of weeks spent complaining about intrusion of privacy until the girl realises that she can make millions of dollars by agreeing to distribute the sex tape. But that’s not the case with the naked pictures of Adrienne Bailon, because Adrienne is furious enough to sue anyone who distributes her naked photos. Her lawyer has released the following statement:

“The photos that have surfaced of Adrienne Bailon were stolen from her laptop over a week ago at an airport in NY and sent to several media outlets. These photos were taken in private. Adrienne will be pursuing legal action against the person or person’s sending these private photos out. Adrienne is deeply sorry for any pain this may have caused to her fans.“

Honestly, was that really necessary? By all means Adrienne Bailon should sue anyone who tries to distribute these naked photos of her – even though they’ve made her a billion times more famous than she was a couple of weeks go – but come on.

Lawyers are expensive, and it’s silly to waste your money paying them to apologise to your fans. You’re a Cheetah Girl, for crying out loud. How many fans have you got? And don’t count all the randy old pervert fans you’ve picked up in the last couple of days. That’d be cheating.

You! Follow hecklerspray on Twitter!

And since Kate Winslet has an interview in the new issue of Vanity Fair, it stands to reason that she should get as absolutely naked as flipping possible in every single accompanying picture. But here’s the crazy thing – Kate Winslet’s naked body actually looks fairly decent in the photos.

And this is chubby old Kate Winslet we’re talking about here – lumpy bumpy old chubby old Kate Winslet. So if her naked pictures looked good, it’s only logical to assume that it was because they’d been mangled beyond all recognition with an airbrush. Just don’t mention that around Kate Winslet, because there’s a strong chance she’ll punch your face off if she hears you.

We’ve always had a soft spot for Kate Winslet – she’s living proof that if a fat child loses enough weight by the time she grows up, then the resulting combination revenge and lack of self-esteem means that she’ll almost definitely take off all of her clothes whenever she gets the chance.

And, make no mistake, Kate Winslet was a fat child. That’s not a secret – Kate Winslet mentioned it herself during the endless insecure whine that passed for her interview with Vanity Fair this month. However, while the text might have painted a picture of a woman so wracked with neuroses that she appeared to be impersonating Woody Allen on a particularly brutal episode of 10 Years Younger, the accompanying photos told a very different story indeed.

The accompanying photos, in fact, told a story of a sexy, unusually confident woman sprawled naked across a fur rug with her bum sticking out. The only logical explanation for that, given the chasm between the grubby little lardpot described in the interview and the beautiful woman in the photographs, was that Kate Winslet’s naked body had been airbrushed and Photoshopped and tinkered with until it bore no resemblance to real life at all.

That was the rumour, anyway. But people should know that if you go around spreading rumours about Kate Winslet’s body then you’ll end up with either a lawsuit or a really ruddy strongly-worded letter from one of her employees. Which is what happened yesterday, as People reports:

“Kate is furious at suggestions that her body has been airbrushed,” her rep tells PEOPLE exclusively. “She is in terrific shape and what you see is how she looks or she would never have agreed to pose for those shots.”

You hear that, haters? Kate Winslet’s naked body wasn’t digitally retouched at all, so you can go and shove it. Except that, in truth, the photos were retouched a bit for the magazine, with manipulations made to colouring and skin tone. But that doesn’t mean that Kate Winslet isn’t furious, because she is. She’s furious.

In fact, Kate Winslet is so furious at all those people who claimed that her digitally-retouched Vanity Fair photos had been digitally-retouched that she’s vowed to forgo any digital airbrushing whatsoever next time she poses naked for a glossy magazine. What you see will be all natural Winslet, from the lumps on her body to the throbbing vein that’s splattered across the side of her head because she keeps getting worked up about stuff that nobody else gives a shit about.

Still, despite all this talk of airbrushing, we shouldn’t lose focus of the big picture here – that Kate Winslet has successfully made the leap from being naked in films to being naked in magazines. Congratulations Kate – now you’re only inches away from fulfilling your dream of starting your own premium subsciption-based website to be naked in.

But forget all that, because here’s the video for Britney Spears’ new single Womanizer and – guess what – Britney’s naked in it. What? Oh, for God’s sake, can’t you at least pretend to look interested?

Remember when the thought of seeing Britney Spears naked was sort of exciting? It was a long time ago, granted, and now that same thought probably inspires the sort of queasy fear you experience when you know you’re about to be attacked by a mad red-eyed old bald lunatic clutching an umbrella, but it was there once.

Still, the fact alone that Britney Spears dared to go nude for the Womanizer video should give you some inclination about how seriously Britney is taking her comeback. She apparently lost 10lb for the naked videoshoot by going teetotal, and you know someone means business when they do something for a video that they probably should have done about a year ago before their kids got taken away from them, don’t you.

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?

US TV network bosses have deemed Eva Mendes’ advert for Calvin Klein Secret Obsession perfume – in which she writhes around naked on her bed – as too hot for TV.

Bloody squares. OK, so you can see a bit of nipple, but still.

Anyway, thankfully, hecklerspray has no such concerns, so you can watch Eva Mendes in all her glory below the cut. Enjoy!!

True, Brooke Hogan might be so freakishly hell-bent on getting famous that she’ll try anything from hopeless singing careers to toe-curling opportunistic reality TV shows to get it, but for the simple fact that she isn’t Hulk Hogan or Nick Hogan, we’re prepared to give Brooke Hogan the benefit of the doubt.

Because Brooke Hogan’s hardly planning to exploit her own family’s real-life woes by getting naked for Playboy in the blind hope that it’ll give her the attention she thinks she deserves, is it? What? That’s exactly what she is doing? Fine – disregard everything you’ve just read. We’ll start again after the jump.

We used to feel a bit sorry for Brooke Hogan, you know. There she was, the result of an experimental genetic splice gone horribly awry between a bald, middle-aged sausage-coloured T-shirt ripper and a worryingly masculine woman, Brooke was also named after 1980s DJ Bruno Brookes. You couldn’t help but feel for the poor girl.

If you stand back, tilt your head to a certain angle and squint like you’ve never squinted before, you can probably even find a way to excuse Brooke Hogan for Brooke Knows Best, the reality TV spin-off from Hogan Knows Best that appears to exist solely to rape the dying carcass that is her family life.

No, really, you can – look at it this way. Brooke Hogan’s mother and father are getting divorced, her mother has run off with Brooke’s old schoolmate and Brooke’s brother is in prison for driving like an incredible tit and wrecking the rest of his best friend’s natural life. If you were Brooke Hogan you’d be feeling a bit strapped for attention too.

And, as we all know, it’s girls who don’t get any attention that you’re probably able to get naked the fastest. Which is why, with the sort of tragic inevitability that could bring planes from the sky, Brooke Hogan is dangerously close to agreeing to strip naked for Playboy magazine. The New York Daily News reports:

Brooke Hogan has been approached to pose nude for the famous men’s magazine, her publicist told the Daily News on Wednesday. And she didn’t say no…. “No decision has been made at this time,” her rep said.

No decision has been made, if you don’t know, is Playboy code for “Jack up my fee old man!” Well, that or “Three grand extra and I’ll get my fanny out as well.” It’s all in the inflection and we’re not experts.

But Brooke! Don’t go naked for Playboy! You’re still young. One day you’ll regret being in Playboy, and it’s not something that you can ever take back. We know you’re feeling sore about your family, but this isn’t the way to get back at them. If you really want attention then you should channel everything you have into accomplishing something good with with your life, something positive that you can look back on and be proud of. Getting naked for Playboy is not the answer.

Also you kind of look like a bloke, and that’s a bit weird.

However, we were proven wrong when we were told that a couple can prove their love for each other by ‘creating a baby’. This literally knocked us back, throwing into disarray our previous notion that a child is created using flour, the tears of an orphan, vanilla extract, nail clippings and the sweat from a man/woman depending on what sex you wanted the child to be.

In days gone by, people would takes months to even kiss each other – never mind engage in any sexual goings on. Having a baby would only happen a good few years after marriage, under the eyes of God and surrounded by an approving society. However, we now live in a culture where a girl will flash her tits for half a pint of lager or for a couple of cold chips.

So just imagine our disgust when we found out our number one celebrity fan and all round grasper of swear words Lee Ryan has left his pregnant fiancée of eight months.

Ages ago, Lee Ryan called hecklerspray scribbler Chris Laverty a “cunt” after reading a story about pop-demigods Blue being mime artists on stage. A pop band not singing live? That’s like saying they don’t write their own songs. When will the lies stop?

We decided to stick by our Lee despite his misspelt messages to the hecklerspray Myspace page and sometimes our personal accounts. From the lows of walking out of Hell’s Kitchen and lamping a taxi driver, we’ve been there for our bruv. Granted, there haven’t been any highs for him yet like a Mercury Prize nomination, but we still have expectations of him.

It’s only recently come to our attention that Lee did indeed find love – hooray! We were just about to crack open some Superbrew to celebrate, but then we found out a few things. His girlfriend Samantha Miller didn’t meet him in a fancy restaurant or nightclub. No, she got her tits out and sent him the pictures through Myspace. Who says romance is dead? Not our Lee of course, who fell head over heels for Samantha. Likely because he didn’t have to pay 35p to see a pair of boobs in The Sun.

More than likely this story will be sold to a tacky women’s magazine, but a source told the Daily Star:

“She is distraught and doesn’t know what to do – it is horrible enough to be dumped any time, but with her pregnancy, and all her hopes they would build a future as a family, it has left her in tears.”

In the interests of fairness, a friend of the elephant man – possibly Laverty – said:

“They’ve only been dating a few months and we didn’t expect him to settle down any time soon.”

Samantha was a fan of Blue in her youth and was said to have pictures of Lee all over her room. These days she’s five months pregnant and all alone in the world. It looks like she may have to sell those much-loved wall coverings to afford clothing for the child now.

We believe this proves that Lee is not actually sexually attracted to humans, but actually elephants. No-one with any sort of morals would do such a thing to a lady who’s up the duff. Remember everyone; this is the bloke who thought 9/11 was a drop in the ocean compared to the plight of the elephants.

Reports that he has moulded his penis to resemble an elephant’s trunk are unconfirmed and we aren’t volunteering to find out. Maybe a fan from Myspace can confirm or deny things for us in a few months. Though, to be honest, everyone knows Facebook is where it’s at these days.

If it’s not another re-make, adaptation, based on a book or a sequel then it’s amazing to see something off any original merit reaching the big screen.

Transformer Megan Fox is sick of this and is making a one women stance against the generic films being exported out of various film studios. She wants to take things back to the old school and revisit the industry in the 1930s.

You may think she wants to don a Charlie Chaplin style moustache and partake in silent films, but you’d be wrong. Instead she wants to do a film in the nude. All because she believes it was done “arty” back then.

Unless Megan Fox has been living in a giant plastic bubble or has extremely powerful parental supervision software on her computer, we all know that – even though the 1930s ended long ago – films starring naked people are still being made. These films are called porn films, or if you’re a bit more classy, ‘adult entertainment’.

After a quick experiment, we typed “porn films” into Google and it told us there are 2,850,000 results. That’s a lot of links to men and women doing all sorts of strange and sometimes upsetting stuff to each other.

But does Megan Fox want to take part in one of those naked films, usually involving seven people with a bottle of washing up liquid and half a dozen boiled eggs? She said:

“I would love to do a movie naked – it would be beautiful. No studio would ever take the chance of making a film like that again. They did it in the 1930s in an arty way.”

We haven’t seen any films from the 1930s with people showcasing their genitals. But because they’re done in an arty way, it automatically makes whatever has been going on extremely tasteful and socially acceptable. Did one chap use his penis as an artificial paintbrush to decorate his girlfriend’s flat whilst she was away at the local supermarket to pick up some supplies for the larder?

Still, if Megan Fox wants to naked up our TV then we are all for it. Not because we’re perverts or anything, but simply because we want to see if the Fox has a bushy tail, if you know what we mean.

Whatever the case, hecklerspray is extremely intrigued about these saucy goings on and may have to spend this coming research doing some research into these so-called tasteful porn films. If we don’t post any articles on Monday, you know we are frozen to the spot due to the vulgar sights we have just witnessed.

Why? Well, for starters, shoving it in his big, fat chops might shut him up.

Secondly, it could be the only way we can stop him from doing nude scenes.

That’s right – nude scenes!!

‘Nude scenes’ and ‘Jack Black’ – if ever there was four words that should not appear together in the same sentence it’s that right there.

And you’ll be disgusted to know that the Kung Fu Panda star has done them before (In Margot at the Wedding – just in case you are some twisted freak and want to check him out.)

Read the rest of this entry (opens in a new window) >>

What? Miley Cyrus is only 15? Well, um, obviously we were joking about that sex object bit. The supple, milky-white backs of teenage girls are so disgusting to us that we think they should all be burnt with flaming torches. But Playboy’s Hugh Hefner has another idea. You can probably guess what it involves.

That’s right – Hefner has asked Miley Cyrus to appear naked in Playboy. But don’t worry, because Miley Cyrus won’t be getting naked for Playboy until she’s 18, the age where people immediately stop having moral objections to teenage nudity. Until then, though, it looks like you’ll just have to wait until the inevitable Miley Cyrus naked internet photos. Perverts.

Phew, this Miley Cyrus thing has really started to calm down. When those Miley Cyrus underwear photos were so quickly followed by the not especially topless Vanity Fair pictures, the storm was so huge that we didn’t think it’d ever die down. But, after what seems like an age, people are finally starting to leave Miley alone.

And not a moment too soon. After all, not only does Disney need Miley Cyrus to keep making it lots of money, but Miley is a teenage girl, and she was only doing what teenage girls do – letting one of the world’s most famous photographers take slightly risque photo of her bare back and then blaming the same photographer as soon as they’re published and people get upset.

What’s more, tomorrow sees the release of Miley Cyrus’ Got Milk advert, and the last thing a 15-year-old girl in the middle of a sex scandal needs is a photo of her top lip covered in a creamy liquid. No, the Miley Cyrus is dead, and that’s the best place for it to be.

Except that Playboy founder Hugh Hefner has just decided to offer Miley Cyrus a chance to pose naked in his magazine. Whoops. The Boston Globe reports:

Hugh Hefner wants 15-year-old Miley Cyrus to pose naked in Playboy. The 82-year-old tycoon thinks the ‘Hannah Montana’ star… would be a hit with readers of the adult magazine when she turns 18. He said: “She would be welcomed in the magazine. She’s a very pretty lady.” He added to US TV show ‘Extra’: “I think to make such a big to-do over something as innocent as those photos. I think is a reflection on how schizophrenic America is about sexuality.”

Schizophrenic? Well, that’s exactly what you’d expect from a pornmonger like Hugh Hefner. Not us, though – naked teenage girls make us feel sick, and if we ever saw an underage girl taking her clothes off, we’d punch her square in the face as hard as we could.

However, we should point out that Hugh Hefner doesn’t want Miley Cyrus to appear in Playboy until she’s 18. And that’s actually OK, because that way a) Miley Cyrus will have made the choice as an adult to bare her flesh within the comfort of the law and b) we’ll get to see what Miley Cyrus’ boobs look like and if we’re lucky she won’t have aged much by then and still look a bit like a little girl. It’s a deal where everyone wins.

Especially Miley Cyrus. After all, her Dad is a country singer, and once she’s posed naked for Playboy she’ll be just a drug addiction and an abusive marriage away from filling in all the items in the country singer’s daughter to-do list. Again, everyone wins.

Read more:

Miley Cyrus’ Playboy offer – Boston

Thank God for that. We can once again look at Miley Cyrus without feeling like the spirit of Josef Fritzl has entered into our souls.

Now all we need do is wait a few months until her sixteenth birthday and, abracadabra, we can gawp at her naked tweeny flesh without society judging us as perverts. God bless the American legal-system and its confused morals!

Oh, sweet Cyrus, it’s all cosy now. You’re America’s golden child and the whole country has got your back. But soon you’ll want your freedom; you’ll want to go out to clubs and meet male people who’ll want to introduce you to Mr Winky!

You’ll probably find that you’re naturally inclined to like Mr Winky too, and it’s nothing to be ashamed of, Miley, but you will be ashamed – because you’re the Disney girl.

Disney girls don’t do sex, they get impregnated by swirling kisses, their babies delivered to them by stalks, and as the DUIs and the rehab visits steadily increase as you fail to deal with the forever blossoming fact that nobody lives happily ever after in this horrible world, we’ll still be here, gawping at you and gawping at you, safe in the knowledge that your resultant disintegrating, achey-breaky heart was exactly what we were after.

That’s one potential future at least.

In the new pictures, she is standing fully-clothed in between Mickey and Minnie Mouse, all three of them with post-coitus-ish smiles stretched across their face.

We are not suggesting for one moment that Mickey, Minnie and Miley had a Disneyfied three-way – why would you even think that? The style of their smile is merely a coincidence. Not that we wouldn’t wish it upon Mickey – God knows he must be bored after a centuries worth of fucking that particular squeaky dullard. We bet he dreams of Minnie taking part in an Annie Leibovitz photoshoot!

God damn it Minnie! Rip that soccer-mom dress off, open up your spindly-kegs, show Mickey the rat of the mouse and finally give him something worthwhile to write home to Pluto about.

There were rumours that Disney wanted to cease all links with Miley after she showed her back breasts to the world, but they’re pretty much ended now with this photo-shoot, along with her upcoming performance at the Walt Disney World Resort in Orlando on Saturday.

Stay tuned for all the latest Miley Cyrus news, coming to you from a world called hecklerspray.

Read more – Miley Cyrus back in squeaky-clean mode after topless shoot – Telegraph