whore babies

Back in March, Lindsay Lohan filed a suit against E*Trade, claiming that the baby in the brokerage’s latest commercial was based on her life. Lohan came to this conclusion because the character’s name is Lindsay, she’s referred to as a “milk-a-holic,” and there’s a suggestion that the young one is a man-stealing tramp (she also claimed that though the name “Lohan” is never mentioned, she’s attained first name recognition. Plus, the stuff about the baby being a strung out slut). For the grave offense, Lohan demanded the spots pulled, and $100 million for the emotional distress they caused her. Continue reading »

Back in March, Lindsay Lohan filed a suit against E*Trade, claiming that the baby in the brokerage’s latest commercial was based on her life. Lohan came to this conclusion because the character’s name is Lindsay, she’s referred to as a “milk-a-holic,” and there’s a suggestion that the young one is a man-stealing tramp (she also claimed that though the name “Lohan” is never mentioned, she’s attained first name recognition. Plus, the stuff about the baby being a strung out slut). For the grave offense, Lohan demanded the spots pulled, and $100 million for the emotional distress they caused her. At the time, E*Trade said the bitch be crazy, and claimed that they used the name Lindsay because it’s “a popular baby name” and not because they were trying to insinuate that Lohan is some sort of strung out whore (baby). They also shot back that Lindsay does not have “one name” recognition like “Madonna” or “RuPaul” or “Lloyd,” and that the commercial could have been about any one of the 250,000 people named Lindsay in the U.S. Lohan’s lawyers recently responded. First, her attorneys would like to make clear, the issue isn’t “how many people in the USA are with the name ‘Lindsay’,” the issue is “how many celebrities are with this name ‘Lindsay’ in the USA, and then in the context, manner, characterization, persona.” For instance, when you take the name “Tiger” and put it in the context of golf or proclivity skanky ass bitches, it’s obvious you’re talking about Tiger Woods. To that end, it’s apparently patently obvious that when you have the name “Lindsay” in the context of an alcoholic “bimbus” (the lawyer’s words), we’re talking about Lindsay Lohan. Continue reading »

Earlier this week, Lindsay Lohan filed a suit against E*Trade. The claim? That the baby in the brokerage’s latest commercial was based on her life. Lohan came to this conclusion because the character’s name is Lindsay, she’s referred to as a “milk-a-holic,” and there’s a suggestion that the young one is a man-stealing tramp (she also claimed that though the name “Lohan” is never mentioned, she’s attained first name recognition. Plus, the stuff about the baby being a strung out slut). For the grave offense, Lohan wants the spots pulled, and $100 million for the emotional distress they’ve caused her. Though not trained lawyers in the classical sense, our take was that while it seemed like Lindsay was being a little paranoid (/in need of money, and brilliantly tapping a new revenue stream), that whore-baby was definitely her. To that end, today the Post reveals how your loose Lindsay sausage got made.

The intimate glimpse into the Madison Avenue sausage-making process was provided by an Esquire magazine reporter, who was granted access to meetings at Grey Group as they hashed out the details for the spot. According to internal documents obtained by the magazine, workers at the Fifth Avenue ad company can be seen brainstorming on Sept. 10 about a cutting, but FCC-friendly, word to describe a trollop of a tyke named Deborah.

But less than three weeks later, in a document from Sept. 28, Deborah’s name is crossed out and replaced with “Lindsay,” according to the mag.

On the same page as Lindsay’s name is a slew of sleazy descriptors including “gutter hound,” “fish face,” “rug burn” and “skanky cake.”

When asked if the tramp baby was based on Lindsay, creative director Tor Myrhen said, “Not at all. I don’t think we even thought of it at the time.” Anyway! Let’s roll that tape again. Continue reading »