snopes.com  

Go Back   snopes.com > Urban Legends > NFBSK

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 05 May 2007, 05:32 AM
snopes's Avatar
snopes snopes is offline
 
Join Date: 18 February 2000
Location: California
Posts: 109,650
Icon220 Britney Spears Topless Photos Now Online: Or Are They a Hoax?

Britney Spears is again flashing the world. A woman that is purported to be pop princess Britney Spears is posing outdoors completely topless.

http://www.nationalledger.com/artman...72613086.shtml

Photos here: http://community.livejournal.com/ohn...28.html#cutid1




Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 05 May 2007, 06:18 AM
crazybob's Avatar
crazybob crazybob is offline
 
Join Date: 23 November 2005
Location: Tacoma, WA
Posts: 103
Default

Much ado about nothing at this point, I say.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 05 May 2007, 07:24 AM
charlie23
 
Posts: n/a
Default

At least she has panties on this time. Or was that Paris Hilton ? I get the two confused.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 05 May 2007, 09:00 AM
TwoGuyswithaHat's Avatar
TwoGuyswithaHat TwoGuyswithaHat is offline
 
Join Date: 29 December 2005
Location: Kitchener, ON
Posts: 3,060
Default

I'm inclined to believe the photos are of a look alike, if only because of the lack of actual facial features visible. Her glasses almost look like see through saucers covering her face.

However, if they are real, my comment becomes... so?
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 05 May 2007, 12:39 PM
Ceiling Fan's Avatar
Ceiling Fan Ceiling Fan is offline
 
Join Date: 28 August 2006
Location: Oulu, Finland
Posts: 262
Default

There's more bare skin to be seen on an average MTV music video.

I find those pics quite nice actually, whether that's Britney or a look-a-like.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 05 May 2007, 01:01 PM
Malruhn Malruhn is offline
 
 
Join Date: 28 November 2003
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 7,854
Default

Methinks these photos are from a couple years ago - in happier - and slightly chubbier - times.

Her face still looks like she has baby fat in her cheeks - which I haven't seen in any pics from the last several years.

I agree with Ceiling Fan - nice pics, no matter who it is. What's the curfuffle? (sorry, I just HAD to use that word!!)
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 05 May 2007, 07:58 PM
2334Paydan
 
Posts: n/a
Default

It's not Spears, the nose is all wrong.

And to suggest that she would willingly do something like this is ludicrous.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 05 May 2007, 08:01 PM
Troodon Troodon is offline
 
Join Date: 06 January 2004
Location: Waltham, MA
Posts: 8,077
Default

I don't know whether the woman in the photos is Britney Spears or not (although there is a strong resemblance), but whoever she is, she's not posing topless by my definition.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 05 May 2007, 08:14 PM
Stoneage Dinosaur's Avatar
Stoneage Dinosaur Stoneage Dinosaur is offline
 
Join Date: 19 August 2005
Location: Fraserburgh, Scotland
Posts: 2,559
Default

The photos have been front page news in the British tabloids this week, and if The Sun says it's Britney, that's good enough for me.

ETA: I've just noticed the headline they used, "Star Britney's nips in the bud". That is shockingly feeble punnery.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 05 May 2007, 08:15 PM
Lainie's Avatar
Lainie Lainie is online now
 
Join Date: 29 August 2005
Location: Suburban Columbus, OH
Posts: 74,475
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2334Paydan View Post
It's not Spears, the nose is all wrong.

And to suggest that she would willingly do something like this is ludicrous.
Why is is ludicrous?
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 05 May 2007, 11:17 PM
2334Paydan
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lainie View Post
Why is is ludicrous?
You're right. I forgot that we now live in an age where if you're a celebrity, you are expected to make a sex tape and then leak it either to the 'Net or to friends who arrange to have some porn company buy it and sell it online and in dvd's.


And of course, these days there is no shame or stigma for doing such things, in fact it enchances ones celebrity cache.

All of what I wrote above is true and none of what I wrote above should beconsidered a good thing by any strech of the imagination.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 06 May 2007, 03:23 AM
FullMetal FullMetal is offline
 
Join Date: 19 December 2005
Location: Edmonton, AB
Posts: 1,376
Default

who's to say these aren't real photos. LOTS of people, I know several myself, take topless or nude photos of themselves. posing in various ways. in a way it's perfectly healthy. and I don't begrudge her posing topless like this. now the panty-less photos are a different story. These photos appear to be ones not intended for public consumption, and are probabally taken in her back yard where she expected privacy. (it's not like she's posing in the middle of a park with children walking around or anything)

now if she intentionally leaked them, well that's her perogative too, it's not a good thing. But the act of taking suggestive photos, is by far not that unusal, or a "famous person only" activity.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 06 May 2007, 04:05 AM
Eddylizard's Avatar
Eddylizard Eddylizard is offline
 
Join Date: 15 June 2006
Location: Tonbridge, Kent, UK
Posts: 17,857
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stoneage Dinosaur View Post
The photos have been front page news in the British tabloids this week, and if The Sun says it's Britney, that's good enough for me.

ETA: I've just noticed the headline they used, "Star Britney's nips in the bud". That is shockingly feeble punnery.
Quote:
She appeared to be blooming with health after quitting rehab. The 25-year-old mother of two had sought help after splitting from husband KEVIN FEDERLINE, repeatedly painting the town red and even shaving her head.
My word, her hair grew back remarkably quickly (see photo 2 in the second link in snope's OP.)

Not topless. No nips. It doesn't count.

ETA Why does that Sun article bold and capitalise KEVIN FEDERLINE? Is it because no-one actually remembers who he is?

ETA2 - Are those roses or carnations? If they are roses, I hope for her sake the thorns were removed from the stalks before the shots.

Last edited by Eddylizard; 06 May 2007 at 04:11 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 06 May 2007, 04:12 AM
snopes's Avatar
snopes snopes is offline
 
Join Date: 18 February 2000
Location: California
Posts: 109,650
Icon220

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eddylizard View Post
My word, her hair grew back remarkably quickly
Indeed. It's like she expects us to believe she's wearing some sort of artificial hair product, as if such a thing really existed.

- snopes
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 06 May 2007, 04:45 AM
callee's Avatar
callee callee is offline
 
Join Date: 05 March 2004
Location: Ontario
Posts: 5,731
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by snopes View Post
Indeed. It's like she expects us to believe she's wearing some sort of artificial hair product, as if such a thing really existed.

- snopes
It can't be real hair, the... shadows are all wrong.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 06 May 2007, 04:50 AM
MidgardDragon's Avatar
MidgardDragon MidgardDragon is offline
 
Join Date: 13 January 2004
Location: Powell, TN
Posts: 6,764
Default

Count me in on:

These aren't topless photos, not even close. If these are topless then every girl I see in the bar exposing cleavage is topless too.

and:

It's her perogative to post topless (or some semblance thereof) and it is neither unhealthy nor "ludicrous" for her to do so.

Sex /= Bad

Nudity /= Bad
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 06 May 2007, 11:55 PM
Wesman
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I would be more likely to belive it was her if she wasn't wearing giant sunglasses and a low hat.

Wesman
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 07 May 2007, 04:29 PM
JessBoo
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Malruhn View Post
Methinks these photos are from a couple years ago - in happier - and slightly chubbier - times.
Chubbier? You think she's chubby in those photos?

From the comments on the Sun page-
Quote:
A mother of two - when does she find time for her children? Every photo I have seen she is partying or doing something weird like shaving her head or sitting topless with flowers on her breast.
Quote:
Obviously her kids are with her in the garden while enjoying the sunshine! Yeah right!
What is wrong with people? Why wouldn't her kids be there with her, and why isn't she allowed to 'party' if she's a mum?
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 07 May 2007, 06:40 PM
Malruhn Malruhn is offline
 
 
Join Date: 28 November 2003
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 7,854
Default

Jess, actually, I much prefer her with a little bit of... weight... on her. I find the person in that pic to be rather attractive.

My comment was more pointed toward the fact that she has been working on that uber-hard hard-body the last couple years - to get rid of the baby poundage, most probably. She, in my personal opinion, doesn't look as attractive with a six-pack going on.
_____________________

I also have to agree with your second question as well. The pics are far from sexualized - I wouldn't care if her kids were next to her as she took the pics (unless the pics were from several years ago, and then we'd have a big "space-time continuum" thing going on!!), and this comes from a stinky moral conservative.

Since her kids were born, she has been on stage for, what was that "thing" a couple weeks ago? Eleven or fourteen minutes? Then she's been partying on some Friday and Saturday nights... hardly like the 24-hour party monster the media has made her out to be. She has had LOTS of time to play, "mommy".

Get off her back, Sun!!
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 07 May 2007, 06:45 PM
Unklesam
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I vote fake. That is clearly not Kevin Federline. Only that hat looks real.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:15 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.