But it’s not like this was a deliberate publicity stunt. We know that “Britney Spears” is an anagram of “Best PR in years” but IF this had been a publicity stunt, wouldn’t a heads-up about the nudity have been leaked to the media two weeks in advance, so as to stir up a heap of attention-grabbing headlines and attract the interest and attention of non-fans and general news journalists AS WELL AS fans?

Anyway, knowing the contradictory nature of Britney fandom, I hardly have to say that the video has created a world of controversy among the fanbase. Some fans are objecting to the nudity. In some cases, this is simply because they don’t like nudity - by anybody, anywhere, regardless of the circumstances. They say it’s “unnecessary” in the video.

There are other supporters of the position that it’s “unnecessary”. Here there seems to be a “woman’s empowerment” agenda, even if those arguing the case don’t realise it. There’s an underlying assumption that getting naked is something that a woman wouldn’t choose to do unless she had to. Why Britney would have to isn’t often explained, but the options seem to be limited - either she has to do it to sell her music (I think that argument has been throroughly discredited by now) or she has to do it because of the huge and pervading male conspiracy to degrade and objectify women.

There are more thoughtful and specific objections too. Beth at The Fresh Zone argued as follows: “I would never deny that she looks amazing, I just think looking naked, or close to it, is so overdone with her. Like, it's losing it's appeal for me because we see it in every video. I feel like the majority of people (for instance, the type of middle-aged people who generally watch 20/20) are just going to roll their eyes and be like "Typical Britney Spears, just writhing around naked or in her undies" and I'd like her to step outside of that box and show that she's capable of being successful, and being able to make that comeback, by doing more than just looking hot.”

That objection does have a certain resonance. So why exactly DID Britney decide to - or agree to - go naked in the “Womanizer” video? I’ve already discounted the idea that it was simply a publicity stunt, since if that was the intention it was horrendously mismanaged... and at this particular moment, everything is being managed with infinite care.

Maybe it’s just that director Joseph Kahn likes to see Britney naked and knows she’s not too hard to persuade? He succeeded in filming her all-but-naked for “Toxic” too. We may easily assume that he would want to do that just because he’s a guy, but maybe he actually has artistic reasons? After all, if the nudity is compromising the creative integrity of the video he’s bound to get his share of the flack from the nay-sayers, isn’t he? Well, apparently not! Nobody has blamed anyone but Britney herself, so far.

But I guess it is possible that he sees merit in building a sex-related storyline around the portrayal of a super-sexy siren, an image that underpins the interaction between Britney’s various characters and the male actors playing opposite her, and says “she may look like a secretary but this is what lies underneath”.

My Canadian friend Louise McGraw adds a reverse twist to this idea - she suggests that the concept is to provide a constant reminder that this is how a “womanizer” thinks about a woman - as a sexual object - no matter what jobs she actually does, no matter what roles she actually plays and no matter how she’s dressed.

However, I’m not sure how much we can or should analyse Britney’s nudity in the video. I think we should probably just accept it as one of her signatures, like her unusual voice. If we simply accepted that every Britney video will contain a “writhing naked or in underwear” scene because that is part of the essence of Britney-ness, it could save a lot of argument.

Personally, I suspect that Britney simply WANTED to do it, for her own pleasure, satisfaction and self esteem. She's been slated as "fat" and "out of shape" for YEARS now, by just about everybody. That would hurt ANY woman, and it sure as hell must have hurt Britney. Recently she's been working like crazy to get her body back to the wonderful shape it used to be, and she's succeeded. So wasn't it natural that she'd want to show it off? I know if I'd been in her position, I'd have done the same.

It's not as if she was determined upon a course of rampant exhibitionism. She's carefully covering her breasts with her arms. And it's not like she's only hiding something she isn't proud of it - yes, her breasts are quite small at the moment, and the very opposite of the traditional cone-shaped pointy silicone breasts we expect to see on celebrity women. But she's not showing her extremely shapely ass either. So it's nudity as aesthetics, as celebration of form, fitness and beauty. It's not nudity as porn.

Of course, if Britney felt a need to explain or excuse it, she need only turn to that never-failing source of conceit and pretentiousness, Christina Aguilera. Asked about her latest "raunchy" photoset, the Queen of Scream retorted "I am an artist, and I must express myself in any way I see fit".

Comments (0)