Cele|bitchy

Katy Perry in red Dolce & Gabbana at the ‘Part of Me’ premiere: lovely or gaudy?
Jennifer Aniston isn’t engaged, she’s just flashing non-engagement rings
Johnny Depp’s team wants you to know that it was all Vanessa Paradis’s fault
Lindsay Lohan poses with a gun for Terry Richardson: gross and sad?
Prince William gave money to the Middletons to help pay for their new manor
Chris Hemsworth’s GQ photo shoot is beefcake-y, hot: would you hit it?
Disney Channel’s pres.: ‘The network is not responsible for raising children’
Blake Lively in Marchesa & Jenny Packham in NYC: beautiful or busted?
Natalie Morales is pissed off at NBC, ‘Today’ & her alleged ex-lover Matt Lauer
Jenny McCarthy on her son seeing her in Playboy: “He can find worse on the Internet”

Katy Perry in red Dolce & Gabbana at the ‘Part of Me’ premiere: lovely or gaudy?

Posted: 27 Jun 2012 08:56 AM PDT

Katy Perry walked the red carpet last night for the Los Angeles premiere of Part of Me movie at Grauman’s Chinese theater. She wore a red, strapless Dolce & Gabbana dress and matching D&G pumps. I think she was aiming for glamour, and while she didn’t quite meet her goal, Katy has certainly done much worse on the red carpet. The full skirt was quite flouncy and threatened at one point to fly up and show some of Katy’s business down south. That part was probably planned.

Katy matched her lipstick to the color of her dress. Between the lips and the lashes, the effect is one of crazy clown makeup. At least she didn’t dye her hair the same color too.

Before the movie, Katy performed live onstage outside the theater. She wore one of her usual “quirky” outfits with film reels on her boobs and a concession-stand theme for the hot pant part of the ensemble. I find it quite appropriate that Katy had a “PayDay” bar printed on her right butt cheek.

Later on, Katy changed into one of her newfound “gothy” ensembles to sign some autographs for fans. We don’t have a full view of the outfit, but the bottom half was probably as dreadful as the upper view.

Photos courtesy of WENN

Jennifer Aniston isn’t engaged, she’s just flashing non-engagement rings

Posted: 27 Jun 2012 08:32 AM PDT

Well, Jennifer Aniston's ring-flash at LAX did the trick. Meaning that wearing diamond rings on the ring fingers of both hands, then flashing said rings to the waiting paparazzi at LAX all while smiling slyly did the trick. Jennifer and Justin and "engagement rumors" dominated a news cycle, and the denials didn't come until 24 hours later. Yes, Jennifer has always worn rings on her ring fingers – on both hands. She likes jewelry. And Justin hasn't proposed. And we’re talking about it. Mission accomplished!

When Jennifer Aniston arrived at the Los Angeles International Airport after a romantic European getaway with Justin Theroux, buzz immediately built that she was sporting new bling on that finger.

So did she cap off her trip with an engagement?

Not quite … Aniston, 43, prominently wears two rings: The diamond ring on her right hand is a ring that she’s worn several times over the last year. The gold band that spells her name on her left ring finger is a ring she’s also had since she started dating Theroux, 40, who has a matching one!

While photos of the couple, who began dating last May, at LAX set off a fresh round of engagement rumors, “it’s the same ring she has worn forever on her right hand,” a source tells PEOPLE.

Potential wedding bells aside, Aniston seems to be enjoying life with Theroux. Her happiness level is at “10-plus,” she said earlier this year – before this trip which included yachting in the Mediterranean and stops in Paris and in Rome.

[From People]

I always think The Ring Game packs a double-punch when it comes to Aniston. The first round of "engagement" rumors comes with a general well-wishing, an "Atta girl, good for you!" round of sympathetic, "She deserves something good" reporting. Then when Aniston's people deny the reports, there's a round of sympathetic, POOR JENNIFER pity party reporting of why she hasn't managed to "settle down" post-Brad. I don't know if Jennifer wants to get married again. I don't know if Justin wants to get married ever. But I do think she plays The Ring Game on purpose. And I think it's getting old.

Photos courtesy of Fame/Flynet.

Johnny Depp’s team wants you to know that it was all Vanessa Paradis’s fault

Posted: 27 Jun 2012 07:54 AM PDT

LaineyGossip has a great exclusive on Us Weekly's cover story this week, all about what "really" went down in Johnny Depp and Vanessa Paradis's marriage. I didn't realize that Johnny was BFFs with the publisher of Us Weekly, Jann Wenner, until Lainey pointed it out. People Magazine, Star, the Enquirer, In Touch and Radar have all been doing "exclusives" revealing Johnny's womanizing propensities and full-blown mid-life crisis, and now – with Us Weekly – we have the sanctioned Team Depp response. Although I'm not sure how this makes Johnny into the sympathetic one, since they're pretty much saying Depp did in fact screw around with various women when he was still with Vanessa. Some highlights, via Lainey:

*Vanessa was so horrible and Johnny was so miserable that Johnny started drinking and he strayed with other women including "allegedly, an extra on the set of Pirates Of The Caribbean" (the last one). He also maybe fooled around with Eva Green, Amber Heard, his publicist and God knows who else (this is Depp's official version, remember).

*Vanessa wanted to break up 2 years ago because she was unhappy – Vanessa "complained all the time about their low key lifestyle. She didn't want to stay on a private island and quietly raise their babies. She was bored and restless. V was the one who wanted to move to LA and that's when it all unravelled."

*Vanessa "was the one who insisted that he make big budget Disney movies because she loved the money. Johnny wasn't interested but only did them for her." Then, when Johnny became the biggest movie star in the world, Vanessa resented his success.

*A source says, :"Nothing Johnny did was ever good enough for Vanessa. When he was working, she wasn't happy. And when he wasn't working, he was called a slob for not doing enough for the kids and her family."

[Via LaineyGossip]

It's pretty typical blame-the-woman stuff, and I find the most appalling part is that Vanessa is blamed for Depp's career trajectory away from smaller, artsy films to big blockbusters. Please. HE was the one who liked the money – that's always been clear. He loves the money, he loves all the toys he can buy, and he loves being on his own. I understand the need to get "his side" out there, but surely Team Depp knows that blaming Vanessa for everything won't win them any fans? Or maybe it will.

Anyway, Radar/Star is still claiming that Johnny and Amber Heard have been involved for quite a while. A source told Star, "Johnny’s been smitten with Amber for a long time… [when they started filming together in 2009,] with both of them having wild, bohemian streaks, their chemistry was off the charts!” Meanwhile, Johnny is said to be spending a lot of time with English actress Ruth Wilson, on and off the set of The Lone Ranger. You know who Ruth Wilson is, right? She's a very talented stage, television and film actress who is currently dating Jude Law. Jude Law versus Johnny Depp: bitch-fight? Another source tells Radar/Star that Ruth is "an unconventional beauty who’s just Johnny’s type. They’ve discreetly been spending as much time together as possible — on and off the set.”

Ruth Wilson:

Johnny and Amber:

Photos courtesy of WENN.

Lindsay Lohan poses with a gun for Terry Richardson: gross and sad?

Posted: 27 Jun 2012 06:29 AM PDT

Obviously, Lindsay Lohan is a cracked-out mess. Somehow, in between working 25 hours every single day and clubbing every single night (don't worry, it's crack math!), Lindsay found the time to "pose" for Terry Richardson once again. She hasn't posed for him in a few months, ever since Radar revealed that they briefly "dated" and the Cracken basically scared the crap out of Richardson because she's a hysterical, cracked-out, high-maintenance stalker. Well, Terry is back. And he somehow managed to get Lindsay to pose for him once again in her crack den at the Chateau Marmont.

The complete photo set is pretty disturbing, and I'm not including the photos with nudity and/or Lindsay pointing the gun to her head (or her mouth, etc). If you want to see the full photo shoot, go here. Movieline notes that Terry published the images on his Tumblr, Terry's Diary, but pulled the images soon after. I'm sure he got a call from the Cracken. Now, to me, this looks like a fake handgun, but I don't pay that much attention to guns in general, so I'm sure someone will school me. In addition to the gun play, Richardson also snapped photos of Lindsay looking weepy in a bra, Lindsay smoking, Lindsay with liquor bottles on the bedside table, and one of my favorites, Lindsay wearing what I'm sure is the faux fur coat from the Liz & Dick set. I told you she would CRACK HEIST the entire wardrobe department. And she's too stupid to realize that it's bad form to flaunt the clothes that you've stolen.

Here's my #1 favorite photo, because you can tell crackie is trying to recreate Elizabeth Taylor in Cat On a Hot Tin Roof or Butterfield 8 (both include iconic shots of Taylor in a white slip). Cracken On a Hot Tin Roof?

I guess I should say something hand-wringing and sympathetic about Lindsay considering she's trying to "telegraph" something about her unhappiness and suicidal thoughts, I suppose. The nicest thing I can say… her predicament isn't all her own doing. She had horrible parents, she was surrounded by enablers, and the legal system gave up on her a long time ago. Maybe if someone stepped up to the plate and made her take responsibility for her actions, she wouldn't be such a mess. That being said, there are so many people who have it worse, and I'll save my sympathy for them.

Photos courtesy of Terry's Diary/ONTD.

Prince William gave money to the Middletons to help pay for their new manor

Posted: 27 Jun 2012 06:25 AM PDT

Perhaps I've been watching too much White Collar – I've been catching up on my Season 3 DVDs over the past week. Maybe it's White Collar's influence, but it has never occurred to me before this week that Duchess Kate might have had us all fooled. Instead of Waity-ing and simply doing nothing for nearly a decade, is it possible that Kate was simply pulling one of the most intricate long cons in history? Was her marriage to Prince William merely a confidence scheme to get access to millions of dollars, fabulous jewelry, endless frocks and priceless artwork? And are Kate's parents in on the "Waity Con" too?!? Don't say it. I've been watching too much White Collar. But the Middletons are profiting from their daughter's marriage, and not just in the typical "profit" of "access, added respectability and a boost to their business." Carole and Michael Middleton are actually getting cold, hard cash from Prince William now. William "gifted" the Middleton some lump sum to help them make a deposit on a new Berkshire manor. For real.

That’s a surefire way to get in good with the in-laws! Prince William, who inherited $15.5 million on his 30th birthday last Thursday June 21, has already parted with some of that cash to help buy something special for Kate Middleton’s parents: a house!

Carole and Michael Middleton (parents to Duchess Kate, Pippa and James) are in the process of buying a sumptuous estate in Berkshire — featuring 18 acres and a Georgian manor with seven bedrooms — worth about $7.3 million. And their royal son-in-law has put down some of the deposit money “as a gift,” a source reveals to Us Weekly.

“He sees them as his own family and wants to help out in any way he can,” explains the source.

(A Palace rep has no comment, noting only that it’s a “private matter.”)

Indeed, William (whose 30th birthday windfall was from the estate of his late mother Princess Diana) has grown close to Carole, 57, and Michael, 63, during his nearly decade-long romance with Kate, 30, whom he wed in April of last year — recently joining the entire Middleton clan on vacations in Mustique and the French Alps.

As for the Middletons’ home-to-be, which they reportedly have scooped up in a bidding war with other interested buyers? Located near their current home in Bucklebury, the home (with ties to the royal family back in the 1500s) features a grand entrance hall, 17th century fireplace, topiary shrub and “fantastic views,” according to the Daily Mail. “It’s a quiet, secluded property along a country lane.”

Carole and former flight dispatcher Michael are the self-made entrepreneurs behind Party Pieces, a hugely successful mail-order party supply business that employed Kate herself before she became the Duchess of Cambridge.

[From Us Weekly]

There's part of me that thinks this is very sweet, and that William is – beyond any other concerns and conspiracy theories – very fond of his in-laws. But about those concerns and conspiracy theories. For one, Kate and William still spend a lot of time with the Middletons, so I'm guessing that the royal protection officers need to upgrade the security of any and all properties where William and Kate will be staying. So part of the money might not have even come from William – it might be money to ensure that the security is worthy of the heir to the throne.

But there's another conspiracy theory I have brewing away over here. There's always been a question mark as to how the Middletons live so well and how they started their business and just what kind of profit Party Pieces really makes. I've heard whispers – and this was years before the royal whitewashing of Kate – that Kate's dodgy, drug-dealing, pimping uncle Gary Goldsmith helped finance the Middletons' entrance into the British middle class, and Uncle Gary was the one to finance much of the Middleton kids' education and decade-long Waity-ing. Now, those were just rumors, just whispers in the wind. But could it be that the Middletons really aren't that financially solvent? Could it be that Prince William is trying to do his part to whitewash his wife's family so they won't have to take more money from Uncle Gary?

Photos courtesy of WENN.

Chris Hemsworth’s GQ photo shoot is beefcake-y, hot: would you hit it?

Posted: 27 Jun 2012 06:23 AM PDT

I have to admit, I've never really been into the Hemsworth boys. I like beefcake, don't get me wrong, but I need beefcake-plus to get me hot. Like, beefcake-plus-funny, or beefcake-plus-talent. And I've just never seen much of the "plus" from the Hemsworth boys. But I'm still open to them, and I'll keep watching. Chris Hemsworth is profiled in the new issue of GQ (the one with Kate Upton's rack), and it's basically like "p0rn for women" if you get off on tight denim and giant, muscular arms. Which, admittedly, is pretty hot. Go here to see GQ's slideshow (trust me, it's worth it), and here are some highlights from the short piece:

Chris Hemsworth on his physical appearance helping his career: "[My body image has] helped me get a job, sure. But you hope it's not the only thing that helped."

On his Huntsman character: “A lost soul and a drunk.”

Before shooting his "drunk" scenes in SWATH, he would twirl: “It really shakes everything up, and you feel a bit more alive,” he says. “I actually started spinning in circles before the scenes where I didn’t need to be drunk.”

He’s witnessed stranger rituals: “I worked with a guy once who would chant, I’m beautiful and I have a secret, I’m beautiful and I have a secret.”

[Via GQ]

Yeah, he's not going to light the world on fire with his superior conversation skills. But he seems like a decent enough dude, and… THOSE ARMS. I could write poetry about his arms. I have to ignore the caveman face (yeah, I said it) and just focus on his body.

I'm also including some photos of Chris with his two girls, Elsa Pataky and daughter India Rose.

Photos courtesy of Fame/Flynet and Paola Kudacki / GQ.

Disney Channel’s pres.: ‘The network is not responsible for raising children’

Posted: 27 Jun 2012 06:21 AM PDT

The Disney Channel is still raging hard on televisions worldwide, and president/director Gary Marsh sat down for an interview with Hollywood Reporter. Among the topics of discussion were how the channel does not intend to raise children of any type, which is a statement that Marsh intends to include both the actors under his employ and the young, impressionable kids who watch them on television at home. Actually, the way I phrased the issue probably sounds worse than Marsh comes off in the interview; he does appear to care about his actors, as you’ll see below.

I do agree that Disney is not responsible for raising the children within their television audience. No parent should ever expect to plop their kids in front of a box and expect that good things will eventually come of it, and while I still prefer Disney over Nickelodeon for my daughter, it’s a close call, and the quality of Disney shows has been (surprisingly) on a steady decline since “Hannah Montana” ended. Currently, the channel is an awful, non-stop stream of “Hey Jessie,” “Good Luck Charlie,” and “Shake It Up” — all shows that contain superficial, bratty protagonists who think no further than their next cute outfit. Here are some excerpts from Marsh’s interview:

On the pressure of being a “Disney Star”: “For most of people who act, getting a television is the end product. It's the destination. For us, it's the launch pad. In my mind it's: ‘You've landed a TV show, now what's the consumer products opportunity? The film opportunities? The Disney channel movie? The crossover episode? The book you're going to write?’ So they become Disney stars because they intersect with Disney in many ways, and that's by design. Occasionally there are downsides to that: when we get overly identified with somebody and they go off the rails.”

Why do some go “off the rails”? “It's incredibly demanding to be a 15-year-old kid and live your life in the public eye. At the end of the day, they're talented but they're regular teenagers and we're asking so much of them and it's nearly impossible to carry the weight of your fans on your shoulders. Still, being identified with Disney in my mind is net positive.”

Does Disney get involved with their actors’ lives? “We’re one leg of a four-legged stool. It’s the network, the production company, the reps and the parents. We’re really clear on where our role begins and ends. We have things like a one-day seminar called Talent 101, where we bring in security experts, psychologists, showrunners and life coaches. It’s usually after the pilot but before the series launches. But at the end of the day, it’s the parents who really have to be parents. We give them all of the tools they might need, but the network is not responsible for raising their children.”

Do bad eggs damage the Disney brand? “People know that we don’t control who these individuals are, and we don’t try to. It’s the parents’ job to do that. Would our lives be easier if everyone was the perfect poster child? Of course. Do I know that’s not a reality? I do. Someone like Demi is an unbelievably talented young woman who had some challenges in her life from before we met her and will probably have those challenges far into the future. It’s not fair, if that’s the right way to express it, to lay that at the feet of the network that discovered her.”

On banning junk-food advertising on Disney: “What I find interesting is that there’s a line in the press that Disney is only giving up $7.2 million. What’s laughable about that is that we don’t expect to be giving up anything. We expect to be setting a standard so that the community of manufacturers changes how they approach the audience. This isn’t an altruistic move on our part.”

[From Hollywood Reporter]

As far as Disney’s apparent attitude towards its young actors is concerned, I see what Marsh is saying about how these stars have parents, who should be watching their kids’ off-duty actions. Obviously, Disney Channel doesn’t keep its actors in holding pens, so they can only do so much. Still, with so many of them going “off the rails” either during their tenure (Demi Lovato) or shortly thereafter (arguably, Britney Spears), one has to wonder why society in general allows the “child star” to exist. I’m still of the opinion that Disney did some sort of sketchy maneuver on Demi after her breakdown. They virtually erased her show, “Sonny with a Chance,” in short order and immediately replaced it with the “So Random!” spinoff, yet they appeared to keep Demi under their thumb via their music label. I just think it’s bizarre that minors can enter into these contracts but can’t get out of them when it’s probably in their best interests to be cut loose from professional obligations so they can take some real time off and fix themselves. But hey, it’s a business.

Photos courtesy of Disney Channel

Blake Lively in Marchesa & Jenny Packham in NYC: beautiful or busted?

Posted: 27 Jun 2012 06:17 AM PDT

Blake Lively was photographed outside of the Ed Sullivan Theater last night, doing what many say was a "pre-taped" interview with David Letterman. She wasn't on last night's show (as far as I can see), and considering Savages doesn't come out until next week, I guess they're waiting for the big media blitz until then. Blake wore two outfits in NYC – she changed for Letterman, I guess. Both outfits were shades of white – very bridal, right? The wrap dress with the silver stuff at the collarbone is Jenny Packham. The white dress with the mini-cape is Marchesa. The Packham dress makes me notice Blake's incredible body. The Marchesa dress is just kind of meh – it looks like a miniature version of Gwyneth Paltrow's Oscar dress (by Tom Ford).

When Blake was on the red carpet for the LA Savages premiere two nights ago, she spoke to Access Hollywood about boys and what she looks for in a man:

Blake Lively was a vision of style and beauty on Tuesday night when she stepped out at the premiere of her latest movie, "Savages," rocking a curve-hugging Zuhair Murad gown. The actress, who turns 25 later this summer, dished with Access Hollywood's Shaun Robinson about what she's looking for in a potential boyfriend and why (unlike her "Savages" character) she wouldn't be up for a love triangle.

"She is juggling [two men]. The three of them are in a relationship and they're happy and they all know about each other and they're all equally in love. The boys love each other as much as they love the girl, which I find interesting," she said of her big screen love triangle with Taylor Kitsch and Aaron Johnson.

"It's not what you would look for in a normal boyfriend right?" Shaun asked.

"No, no, no, definitely not, that is a little too complicated," Blake explained.

If you're looking to get to the star's heart, you better start with her funny bone.

"I always love somebody who makes me laugh, whose fun to be with," the actress continued.

And standing tall at 5 feet 10 inches, potential suitors should also be blessed with height.

"I love really high heels, so it becomes a problem sometimes," she said, explaining that she's not against being with shorter guys. "I just feel like huge… you don't want to feel like the man."

[From Access Hollywood]

I understand what she's saying about the height thing. I love tall guys, and I love BIG guys. Like, big and beefy. And I'm not even all that tall – I'm average height, but I'm curvy. Don't come after me if you're skinny and short. I tried it, and it made me feel ridiculous. Here's part of Blake's interview with Access Hollywood:

Photos courtesy of WENN.

Natalie Morales is pissed off at NBC, ‘Today’ & her alleged ex-lover Matt Lauer

Posted: 27 Jun 2012 05:42 AM PDT

Matt Lauer is such a pimp. That's what I get from all of these stories about the behind-the-scenes chaos of NBC's morning programming. The Today show has been struggling for the past year, ever since Ann Curry took over as co-anchor of the show with Lauer. Lauer and Curry's chemistry is just OFF somehow, and Ann has been visibly struggling in the position. The result has been a drop in ratings, and sources continue to claim that Lauer (and producers) place the blames on Curry. Yesterday, TMZ reported that Curry wants NBC to buy out her contract completely – giving her $20 million to walk away from NBC. NBC wants to give her $10 million and a "foreign correspondent" position. So… they still have some issues to work out.

Meanwhile, NBC is reviewing their options for Ann's replacement. Sources tell TMZ it will definitely be Savannah Guthrie, while other sources tell Radar that it's Hoda Kotb. The woman not being mentioned by anyone? Natalie Morales. The same Natalie who was Lauer's VERY ALLEGED rumored lover circa 2006-07. The same Natalie who might have a young child who looks a great deal like Matt Lauer. Imagine that – Lauer didn't want to promote his maybe-alleged lover? Weird. So, Page Six reports that Natalie is considering leaving Today too, because she thinks she's being "passed over":

Could "Today" veteran and news reader Natalie Morales be the next to leave the NBC morning show? Sources tell us "Today" will announce the long-rumored departure of its co-host Ann Curry by the end of the week, and that the show's third-hour co-host Savannah Guthrie is the front-runner to replace her. The network's Hoda Kotb has also been reported to be in line to take the reins.

But, either way, sources tell us Morales could be next out the door. "If Natalie's passed over for the job, she's going to leave next," a source told Page Six. Morales has been with "Today" since 2006 and was mentioned as a possible replacement for Meredith Vieira when Vieira stepped down from her co-anchor post last year.

"This will be the second time [Natalie] has been passed over for the top job. And she's not happy," a source tell us.

A NBC Universal rep had no comment on Curry or her replacement, but said the talk about Morales being disgruntled is "totally untrue."

A different source adds: "Natalie couldn't be happier in her current role."

Curry, meanwhile, is expected to leave "Today" imminently, after a year on the job. During her time as co-anchor, the program's ratings have slipped — at times lower than rival ABC's "Good Morning America." Sources tell us NBC suits are currently locked in meetings around the clock to finalize Curry's exit. The network has been negotiating with her over a severance package from her $10 million-a-year contract.

While the sources said an announcement about Curry is finally expected by the end of the week, some insiders said the news could come as soon as today. Although sources at NBC say Guthrie is the current favorite to replace Curry, others close to the talks say that brass had not made any final decisions as of last night.

[From Page Six]

I'm kind of glad that NBC isn't pulling from that shallow talent at MSNBC. Wait, that's not fair – I was just thinking about how much I love to hate-watch Morning Joe. But you know who I love on MSNBC? I love Rachel Maddow, and I would love to see her try her hand at morning programming. That would be unique, right? But Rachel is really good at light banter AND straight reporting, and I could see her exceling on a morning show. Still, they won't do that. They'll go with perky Savannah, trust me. It won't be Hoda. It won't be Natalie "Scarlet A" Morales either.

Photos courtesy of WENN.

Jenny McCarthy on her son seeing her in Playboy: “He can find worse on the Internet”

Posted: 27 Jun 2012 05:39 AM PDT

I have a son who turns eight soon. Like a lot of kids, he has access to the Internet. One he started reading I set up NetNanny and made sure he didn’t know the password. I still pay attention to what he’s doing, and I make sure he’s not online unsupervised. It’s just common sense not to let your kid go online, type in an easy search phrase, and see some wildly inappropriate stuff. This is one issue that makes me yearn for the day when some tame print media was the only access a kid would have to adult material.

So that’s why I’m annoyed at Jenny McCarthy’s ignorant comment about her kid seeing her Playboy spread. I don’t have a problem with kids seeing their parents nude, as long as it’s a casual thing around the house and no one makes a big deal out of it. (My son’s father is German, and they have a much different attitude about it. They’re basically nudists by American standards.) It’s iffy when it’s a sexually charged thing meant for a different audience, but in theory I really wouldn’t care if her son saw it. (He’s probably going to be embarrassed about it when he gets older and his friends know about it, but that’s another story.) I would care if her 10 year-old kid could see anything he wanted on the entire Internet, and that seems to be what Jenny is suggesting here. Or is she making a stupid joke or some other point? Here’s what she said:

Jenny McCarthy, who calls her new Playboy pictorial “a salute to the MILFs,” doesn’t have any qualms about posing nude even though she’s a mom to 10-year-old Evan.

“I think he can find a lot worse available on the Internet these days,” she tells PEOPLE. “I think people make such a big deal sometimes about it, when I feel like it just comes down to how you raise your child and how you explain things to your kid.”

As for how she’ll talk about the spread with her son, she says, “Evan and I will have that conversation someday.”

[From People]

The more this woman opens her mouth, the more she irks me. Of course her kid can “find a lot worse available on the Internet,” but it’s her job as a mother to try and make sure that doesn’t happen. Didn’t she call herself a “warrior mom” on Oprah? Or does that only involve trying to safeguard her son’s health and not his well being? She did let him wear Uggs out with shorts. Maybe she’s just saying her spread in Playboy is tame compared to what it could be. For someone else, I would give her the benefit of the doubt, but she just bugs me.

Here’s Jenny’s “classy,” “elegant” Playboy cover again. They photoshopped away all her dermatologist’s hard work.

Wednesday, June 27, 2012

Cele|bitchy

Cele|bitchy

No comments:

Post a Comment