Amen to that. I wouldn't have put her in that costume, but I thought she looked fine. Especially for someone who gave birth less than a year ago.

I mean, she's mad as pants, sure. But fat? Hardly.

For the same reasons you don't want to see a hariy back'd man on the street without a shirt, she shouldn't be prancing around on stage in that outfit without the right kind of body to compliment it.

While I agree that skinny is a sad epidemic for women in Hollywood, she could have picked a better costume to show off her assets.

Holy Crap, would somebody harpoon that whale and drag her back to the depths where she belongs.

Really, how many more years will we allow these beasts to be role models for young girls when there are much healthier images, like Kate Moss and the Olson twins. That cow probably eats two, hell maybe even three meals a day and I bet she doesn't stick her finger down her throat after any of them.

That right there is one of the biggest, pardon my pun, problems with Amerikkka these days. We allow our youths to idolize fat girls.

/sarc

Okay I feel kind of dirty saying this, but in the pictures I've seen, she looked kind of hot again... I can't believe I just admitted that, I'm off to shoot myself.

Weird. I was just posting the same thing. Say what you want about her singing, dancing, persona, whatever... but she looked pretty hot to me, and it was a waaay unforgiving outfit.

You know what I want to see? A picture of the writer who called her fat. A picture in place panties and a bra -- I don't care if it's a man. I think it's only fair.

Unfortunately, the nutrition Nazis rarely ever follow their own rules. They simply exist to make life miserable for everyone else.

She looked in shape.But her performance was WAY outa shape!

Agreed Nino!

And welcome to my blog....hope you'll hang around. I don't write as often as I should. But occasionally something gets stuck in my craw and this is where it appears.

I thought she was looking great. And she's crazy, so in my book, that makes her super-hot.

So I never really "got" the appeal of Britney -- there are exactly two songs of hers that I'd recognize if I heard them, and even back at her career peak of, oh, 2000-2001 or so, when she was apparently widely considered the hottest thing on two legs, I thought, "OK, attractive, yes, but way, way overhyped."

That said, however: she looked pretty good in that outfit, for a normal person. Better than probably 95% of entertainment writers and/or mothers of two, as you noted.

But the thing is, her career has not been built on looking "pretty good, for a normal person"; she's built her career on being viewed as this supposedly impossibly-smokin'-hot sex symbol (again, overhyped but apparently a lot of folks were buying it a few years ago), writhing around in skimpy outfits showing off a super-fit bod. And since that's not what most entertainment writers or mothers of two are paid for, it's not a fair comparison.

In other words, at her level and in her niche of the entertainment industry, a much higher standard applies than is applied to regular folks who don't get paid millions a year to writhe around in skimpy outfits. And by that standard, she's failing. She's not expected to be 95th percentile, she's positioned herself as 99.9th percentile; and when you can walk across any University of California campus and see a hundred girls in better shape than Spears these days, well, she doesn't seem that impossibly-hot anymore.

It's a cruel standard, yes, but that's the bed she's made for herself by making her super-fit bod the focus of attention early on in her career. Maybe if she had great singing talent to fall back on, like Aguilera or Carey, it would be different. But since she doesn't, at least from what I've heard, she needs to drop the smokes, booze, and Cheetos, get out of the clubs and spend a few hours a day in the gym to keep her career anywhere near the level it used to be.

Totally agree with you, Alex.
I watched her "performance" and the only thing going through my mind was "what's she on?"
Uncoordinated, lethargic and as graceful as a herd of turtles stampeding through peanut butter.

Not to belabor the point, but what Spears sells (or used to sell) is fantasy. She was this larger-than life figure that junior high and high school boys lusted after and, more importantly, junior high and high school girls (who were the ones buying her CDs and concert tickets) dreamed about being, with her toned body and her fabulous costumes and her hyper-confident attitude and her dream-sequence-like dance videos and her status as every boy's wet dream.

Now that she's spent so much time in the gossip pages and she's come down from her peak level of fitness, she's no longer seen as larger than life, just a middling-talented human being with well-known character flaws and bad habits, and without her former level of confidence projection. Thus, the fantasy that her success with her primary audience was built on is now dead.

I doubt her career is over, but I think her main audience from here on out is going to be gay men (who were her secondary audience before) rather than teenage girls. Say hello to this century's Judy Garland.

I give the "fat" judgement some leeway. Yeah she's "fat", relatively speaking, in that context. Rather like calling a pro athlete "out of shape" when in fact he is in better shape than 95% of the population. But in the context of competing at an elite level, one can be considered "out of shape".

She's a performer; they have different standards for their physical appearance.

I thought that Britney looked fine, although I didn't think she looked quite fit enough for that bikini thing she had on.

I've had it with this country's infatuation with the "Neeeeddd moorreee braaaaiinnnsss" look in women. Seriously, those emaciated celebrity women should go eat a meal. Maybe two or three. And for the record, a meal consists of more than a single celery stick and a bottle of Evian.

I really doubt that Spears is the new Judy Garland. That spot is held by Madonna by a mile. Gay dudes LOVE Madonna. Britney Spears is just like every other talentless idiot that MTV throws at us. The only difference is that she can't shake her butt like she used to do. None of these people have any talent. Justin Timberlake is a joke, so are all of these rappers. They can't play instruments or write music. Either somebody writes it for them (Spears, Timberlake, Madonna, Nsync, backstreetboys) or they steal a melody someone else made and talk over it (rappers). No talent. Everybody is down on Britney. They should try giving birth to two kids and becoming a drug addicted alchoholic and see what it does to their bodies. I think her "career" is over. She could induce drooling when she shook her 19 year old butt, now this has changed . All she EVER had going for her was shaking her butt. She was never going to be the next Joni Mitchell or Tori Amos. The girl is a moron. Nobody wants to see her shake a normal butt.

I would have no urge to call her fat. If I did a simple look in a mirror would dissuade me.

She may not have been the best looking person in the world, but then with Moxie in the world how could she?

She didn't look fat, per se, but she reminded me of one of those moms at the beach wearing a bikini that probably looked better on her pre-children. I think part of what forces people into calling her fat is that, just a short few years ago, she seemed like a decent, though not ideal, role model for young girls. Good performer, athletic, trim-but-not-scrawny, proclaimed her virginity, seemed to have some morals, didn't succumb to the pressures of the Hollywood lifestyle, etc... yet, over the past few years, we've found that almost everything Britney appeared to be were simply facades and flat-out lies. She wasn't a virgin, she smoked, partied a lot, got into questionable relationships, and has gone from "cute, naughty young girl" to "Poor white trash Wal-Mart mom" in the seeming blink of an eye.

Maybe the nasty talk about her is more of a bitterness from being fooled for so long.