Anorak News | Britney’s Sexathon

Britney’s Sexathon

by | 21st, September 2004

‘IF Britney Spears is wearing a T-shirt at the moment (which we rather doubt), it would probably bear the slogan, ”Do Not Disturb”.

How long before the teardrop explodes?

The pop princess and her latest husband Kevin Federline have apparently not been seen since they checked into Hollywood’s Hotel Bel-Air together on Saturday night after their wedding.

And the Sun is in no doubt what they have been doing in the £1,000-a-night room.

”Oooooh! We Did It Again (And Again And Again And Again And Again And Again And Again)”, it says of what it imagines is a 48-hour sexathon.

And it claims that bodyguards have been given strict instructions not to disturb the lovebirds.

”We rang Britney once and she went ballistic,” one said. ”She said we were only to contact them again if the world caved in.”

The Mirror says the couple are holed up in Grace Kelly’s old suite – an elegant room with a wood-burning fireplace, a garden patio with outdoor spa and fountain.

And elegance is very much what we have come to associate with 22-year-old Britney.

The Mail has a picture of the teardrop silver pennant the couple gave out to the 15 guests who witnessed Saturday’s nuptials and we must admit it is a handsome creation.

We’re only sorry that the picture the happy couple chose of themselves wasn’t the one featured in the Sun of Britney checking out her husband’s, er, baby-making equipment.

But some people are never happier than when they’ve got something to criticise.

And the Star hears Britney’s rival Christina Aguilera dismiss the whole wedding as ”trashy, pathetic and low-rent”.

”I’d never have thought that girl would have done it this way,” she apparently said.

”I know she really loves Kevin, but this is like really low-rent this time. It’s surprising. The whole affair seems somewhat pathetic.”

However, the good news for those of us who love a good Britney wedding is that she may have to go through the whole thing again.

The Star says the marriage may be a sham – a wedding in name only.

”Britney may find that the priest did not have the authority to conduct weddings,” a source says.

”So, although they have had the ceremony, it’s in name only to protect her million-dollar finances in case it all goes wrong.”

Which means we should all dust down our velour tracksuits, get a new slogan printed on our T-shirts and get ready to – oooops! – do it again…’

Posted: 21st, September 2004 | In: Tabloids Comment | TrackBack | Permalink