Lindsay Lohan Says ‘No Thanks’ To ‘Playboy’ Magazine

She won't be paid for her nekkidness

Lindsay Lohan has reportedly turned down an offer of $700,000 to pose nude in the 55th anniversary issue of Playboy magazine … which I find very interesting, considering she was totally fine with posing totally nekkid in the pages of New York magazine earlier this year completely free of charge:


IT’S once nude, twice shy for Lindsay Lohan. The Sapphic-leaning star has turned down a $700,000 offer to do an eight-page topless spread in Playboy’s 55th-anniversary issue this January. “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’s creative consultant, Hal Lifson, referring to Lindsay’s naked Marilyn Monroe tribute last winter. Lifson said he hoped to have Lohan do a tribute to ’60s sex kitten Ann-Margret and her film “Kitten With a Whip,” which is one of Lohan’s faves.

Psh, I’m totally with her on this. That Playboy magazine would offer her anything less than $1 million bucks is a joke — an insult, even! It’s interesting, tho, that she’s now taken up this position of no more nudity. There seems to be a notion that the New York magazine spread (where Lindsay recreated famous nekkid photos of Marilyn Monroe) was artistic and, therefore, OK and Playboy is more akin to porn … but nekkid is nekkid, y’all. I say, if they up the offer to a million bucks, she reconsider … yes?

[Source]

Share:
| Posted under: ,
  1. Anna

    I think the Monroe recreation was much more personal for her. The fact that they were printed anywhere doesn’t matter. I think the same goes for many, when I view the Monroe recreation, there is an essence of Marilyn left. I doubt she’s “no nudity” but I think she’s going to make a good choice and choose her nude times appropriately. Maybe we’ll start to take her more seriously if she did.

  2. LOVECarrie

    Maybe Sam doesn’t want her to share the goods? ;)

  3. Tara

    Aw she couldve done a Marilyn Monroe Playboy Tribute. ;)

  4. Nicola

    I applaud her for turning it down. She took the NY Mag shoot because it was artistic, and Monroe is her idol. She wasn’t paid for that either, which was really pleasing to here. I can’t stand women who take their clothes off for money. Playboy is a trash rag.

  5. What is ” Lindsay Lohan “? Playboy is short for Playboy’s. This usually means you trade and exit in a very short period of Last Night s Party. The Monroe recreation is just that, you act because you already know what to do.

  6. Pam

    For a million? Definitely will reconsider! Plus, it´s playboy! It is not Hustler…Who would turn it down? (Having the proper bod, right?)
    Love you Trent, I read you every day.. Kisses from Argentina!

  7. Joanne

    I’m with Lindsay – a girl must choose these things wisely! The M.M. pics were obviously a personal connection thing for her. I had no idea she was not paid. I think that says something about her. TRENT – just because a girl will pose nude in one situation does not mean it’s a free for all. You have to have trust in the photographer and publication that they will not manipulate the photos or story. It does not make Lindsay a hypocrite to agree to one and not the other.

  8. Wow

    Her M.M. pictures were also ugly.

  9. Paz

    Just because she takes her clothes off for one job doesn’t mean she has to take them off for everyone!
    Besides, NY magazine and Playboy are two different audiences and have two different objectives.
    I was surprised they only paid her 700,000.
    I wonder how much they paid Kim Kardashian?

  10. cmc

    It’s funny to read this now… the comments are so positive! Three years of foolish nonsense later, no one is on her side anymore.

Leave A Comment