LAST CALL: PETA controversy is a little too much for Britney tobare

The state of Britney Spears' undress - or, rather, lack thereof -

would not normally be of concern for PETA.



However, ever since the poptress clothed herself in an albino python

while gyrating in front of a caged tiger at last year's MTV Video Music

Awards, the relationship between the two has made for intriguing

reading.



As PETA sunk its teeth into Spears, she relented, and dropped animal

acts from her show. Seeming to seal her fate as PETA's pet, she then

last month signed on to appear in PETA's "I'd Rather Go Naked Than Wear

Fur" poster campaign.



However, while Spears agreed to follow in the well-pedicured footsteps

of Naomi Campbell, Cindy Crawford, and Pamela Anderson, she insisted on

being clothed.



Somehow, news of Britney's participation was leaked to the New York

Post's Page Six, which ran the story with the headline "Britney Strips

For Fur-Fighters." A media firestorm ensued, as outlet after outlet ran

with the racy story, most attributing the facts to the Post story.



Spears was reportedly livid when the story broke, so angered at being

"exploited" by the animal activists that she dropped out of the

campaign, generating even more coverage.



"Contrary to what has been widely reported, Britney Spears was never

going to appear in a PETA poster undressed," her spokesperson

sniffed.



Post reporter Chris Wilson defended his original article, insisting that

rather than him saying she'd be naked, "I said 'peel down,' or 'bare her

bod.' And when do you ever not see a picture of Britney where she's at

least showing her navel?"



Fair point. Shame we'll never get to see just how pro- or anti-fur she

really is, though ...



Have you registered with us yet?

Register now to enjoy more articles and free email bulletins

Register
Already registered?
Sign in